Students Subsidizing Athletics

[whaler11]

http://citybeat.com/cincinnati/article-32706-robin_hood_in_reverse.html

 

[whaler11]

I've been waiting for the backlash from students. I guess you could make a case for Cincinnati at least students get something out of their games.

Akron? Bowling Green? Their
programs exist so that people have something to bet on Tuesday nights in the fall.

 

[Adios]

UConn has enough academic lure to have students overlook such costs. But with the economy being as it is, have to wonder how small private schools will fare. If some don't fare well, wouldn't that create a larger potential student pool for Akron and Bowling Green?

 

[whaler11]

UConn has enough academic lure to have students overlook such costs. But with the economy being as it is, have to wonder how small private schools will fare. If some don't fare well, wouldn't that create a larger potential student pool for Akron and Bowling Green?

I guess that might happen. How about the backlash when students are paying $1k a year and athletes are drawing $3-5k in cash?

 

[nelsonmuntz]

I guess that might happen. How about the backlash when students are paying $1k a year and athletes are drawing $3-5k in cash?

According to most of the posters on this board, we can reduce the student subsidy with exposure on ESPN. Somehow.

 

[itgoeslike]

Assuming the data is correct, the numbers illustrate how silly it is to suggest that downgrading football to FCS or putting it in the MAC would save UConn tons of money. Akron, Kent State, Miami U, and Ohio University all have substantial subsidies. For UConn, any savings generated by a downgrade would largely be offset by lost revenue in ticket sales, marketing revenue and yes, even TV dollars. The lion's share of these expenses don't go away, which is illustrated in the data.

If UConn football starts winning again the gap narrows. If UConn gets an invite from a P5 conference it eventually gets in the black. Neither happen if we were to follow the downgrade logic put forth by a handful of posters on this board.

 

[Skiblets]

It's about choices in the free market. If the schools choose to have students subsidize athletics, it's their choice. If the students want to go to a school that subsidizes athletics, that's their choice. If they don't, they can go to the University of Phoenix or a small D3 school that doesn't subsidize. These alarmist articles are a bunch of crap. Free market will dictate if the choices the schools make are wise or not in terms of attracting the next wave of student. Students (and parents) will vote based on overall value and fit of a school - not whether or not there is an athletics subsidy. Subsidy might enter the discussion but is only one element in the decision

 

[upstater]

Assuming the data is correct, the numbers illustrate how silly it is to suggest that downgrading football to FCS or putting it in the MAC would save UConn tons of money. Akron, Kent State, Miami U, and Ohio University all have substantial subsidies. For UConn, any savings generated by a downgrade would largely be offset by lost revenue in ticket sales, marketing revenue and yes, even TV dollars. The lion's share of these expenses don't go away, which is illustrated in the data.

If UConn football starts winning again the gap narrows. If UConn gets an invite from a P5 conference it eventually gets in the black. Neither happen if we were to follow the downgrade logic put forth by a handful of posters on this board.

I've seen internal analysis that shows your hypothesis isn't true. When a certain MAC school upgraded football to D1 a decade ago, it's overall athletic budget tripled within 3 years. TRIPLED. From $7.5m a year to $23m. Look at Rhode Island's total athletic budget. It's still very small.

For some reason, football is incredibly costly at the D1 level.

There appears to be a big difference between D1 and D1AA. It could be coaches pay, an extra 70 scholarships (you have to double them for Title9), more tutors, support, trainers, stadiums, facilities, etc. Whatever it is, you can do lower kinds of football for a fraction of the cost.

I'm not saying this is true for UConn. It differs at every school, and it largely depends on ticket sales and marketing. For most schools, staying in D1 is very very costly. There is a savings by dropping down.

On the other hand, I will note that schools like Boston U., Northeastern, Hofstra, most of the Cal. State schools, have dropped football rather than drop a division. That's pretty telling as well.

 

[upstater]

Has anyone seen what is going on at LSU? That school is about to implode. As a money maker, the football program wont be touched. But the school itself is going to declare bankruptcy this summer.

 

[pnow15]

Why do colleges overpay the administrators as if they bring something special to the school?
Einstein brought something special to Princeton. The administrators can be replaced daily for the next hundred years with no loss of efficiency. So, cut their salaries in half.

 

[DarthGrumpy]

I've seen internal analysis that shows your hypothesis isn't true. When a certain MAC school upgraded football to D1 a decade ago, it's overall athletic budget tripled within 3 years. TRIPLED. From $7.5m a year to $23m. Look at Rhode Island's total athletic budget. It's still very small.

For some reason, football is incredibly costly at the D1 level.

There appears to be a big difference between D1 and D1AA. It could be coaches pay, an extra 70 scholarships (you have to double them for Title9), more tutors, support, trainers, stadiums, facilities, etc. Whatever it is, you can do lower kinds of football for a fraction of the cost.

I'm not saying this is true for UConn. It differs at every school, and it largely depends on ticket sales and marketing. For most schools, staying in D1 is very very costly. There is a savings by dropping down.

On the other hand, I will note that schools like Boston U., Northeastern, Hofstra, most of the Cal. State schools, have dropped football rather than drop a division. That's pretty telling as well.

Due to many factors (size of team, infrastructure for the program, talent competition - coaches and players, etc., football is the 500 lb gorilla of collegiate athletics that either earns a boatload of money (Texas, ND, Ohio St, Michigan, Alabama, etc.) or sinks the boat.

 

[DarthGrumpy]

Why do colleges overpay the administrators as if they bring something special to the school?
Einstein brought something special to Princeton. The administrators can be replaced daily for the next hundred years with no loss of efficiency. So, cut their salaries in half.

Careful what you wish for, one administrator at UConn shares a good portion of the blame with respect to the mess that UConn is in - Jeff Hathaway.

 

[itgoeslike]

I've seen internal analysis that shows your hypothesis isn't true. When a certain MAC school upgraded football to D1 a decade ago, it's overall athletic budget tripled within 3 years. TRIPLED. From $7.5m a year to $23m. Look at Rhode Island's total athletic budget. It's still very small.

For some reason, football is incredibly costly at the D1 level.

There appears to be a big difference between D1 and D1AA. It could be coaches pay, an extra 70 scholarships (you have to double them for Title9), more tutors, support, trainers, stadiums, facilities, etc. Whatever it is, you can do lower kinds of football for a fraction of the cost.

I'm not saying this is true for UConn. It differs at every school, and it largely depends on ticket sales and marketing. For most schools, staying in D1 is very very costly. There is a savings by dropping down.

On the other hand, I will note that schools like Boston U., Northeastern, Hofstra, most of the Cal. State schools, have dropped football rather than drop a division. That's pretty telling as well.

Actually, I think your post supports my hypothesis. All the schools I listed are part of the MAC, so joining the MAC would do little to save UConn money. In fact it would likely lose money. Downgrading to FCS does save more money, some real and some on paper, but it also erodes revenue. Do you think Nike still contributes millions of dollars and gear for an FCS school? I doubt it. In my post, I considered suggesting that the only way to really save money is to eliminate football altogether, but didn't want to give a select few posters the satisfaction. As far as URI, rumor has it, they are one of that are considering FBS. Why would they do that? UConn has made much of the investment required, so they may as well leverage it, at least for the foreseeable future. UConn football was "profitable" (note quotes) only a few years ago, and can close that gap with renewed success.

 

[pnow15]

Careful what you wish for, one administrator at UConn shares a good portion of the blame with respect to the mess that UConn is in - Jeff Hathaway.

And he was overpaid.

 

[upstater]

Actually, I think your post supports my hypothesis. All the schools I listed are part of the MAC, so joining the MAC would do little to save UConn money. In fact it would likely lose money. Downgrading to FCS does save more money, some real and some on paper, but it also erodes revenue. Do you think Nike still contributes millions of dollars and gear for an FCS school? I doubt it. In my post, I considered suggesting that the only way to really save money is to eliminate football altogether, but didn't want to give a select few posters the satisfaction. As far as URI, rumor has it, they are one of that are considering FBS. Why would they do that? UConn has made much of the investment required, so they may as well leverage it, at least for the foreseeable future. UConn football was "profitable" (note quotes) only a few years ago, and can close that gap with renewed success.

How was UConn profitable? The whole point here is subsidies.

For many many years, no one complained about losing $8m a year on athletics. Like URI does. Or like even the Ivies do.

The problem came when schools started to lose $20m a year.

And the problem was compounded when school expenditures dropped by 25% per student on the academic side.

This is where we are now.

 

[upstater]

Why do colleges overpay the administrators as if they bring something special to the school?
Einstein brought something special to Princeton. The administrators can be replaced daily for the next hundred years with no loss of efficiency. So, cut their salaries in half.

In general I agree.

In practice they are hired guns, often not from academia, who are brought in to shake people down.

 

[whaler11]

I think the conversation will change when you leave school with an extra 4-5k in debt and some classmates make $15-20k over their career.

It changes the dynamic especially at schools where no one gives a damn about the sports.

 

[Adios]

Has anyone seen what is going on at LSU? That school is about to implode. As a money maker, the football program wont be touched. But the school itself is going to declare bankruptcy this summer.

Quite an eye opener there. LA-Monroe and LA-Lafayette may become memories.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/r-kyle-alagood/lsus-possible-bankruptcy-_b_7149140.html

 

[whaler11]

Quite an eye opener there. LA-Monroe and LA-Lafayette may become memories.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/r-kyle-alagood/lsus-possible-bankruptcy-_b_7149140.html

Seems impossible that the first cut at Monroe and Lafayette wouldn't be the entire athletic program.

 

[Pudge]

Administrators are overpaid?

Market economics and forces are ignored here regularly. I can state CATEGORICALLY ... as I watch this: a Solid Case story just took place over the last 10 years in the SUNY system. Strong administration is worth far more than they got paid. Weak, constant turnover, ineffectual Administrators flatlined schools or created future holes that may never get plugged. Like your GM of your favorite sports teams, there are definitive "production" numbers that you can evaluate on overall administration. As for overpaid, there is a vibrant labor market that has all the elements of a efficient market. Holding variables for prestige or geographic preference, you can find most of the top 5-10 positions of these Universities are highly fluid. You pay what the market will bear.

And back to Sports and the interrelationship to Rankings of Universities: I think there is a big push to Brand at the top end (certainly not the Ivies ... but others). And Sports - with vehicles like the B1G network - are incredibly important. The top 100 Global Universities are going to be a very competitive world going forward over the next 20 years (Yes, many Nations are edging their way). 35 of the top 50 are American. The BRAND is a factor going forward.

 

[HuskyBandDad]

I think the conversation will change when you leave school with an extra 4-5k in debt and some classmates make $15-20k over their career.

It changes the dynamic especially at schools where no one gives a damn about the sports.

I don't think it will be a problem at a school like UCONN that gets 30,000 applications every year for 3600 freshman spots and plenty of kids transfering in every year.

 

[whaler11]

I don't think it will be a problem at a school like UCONN that gets 30,000 applications every year for 3600 freshman spots and plenty of kids transfering in every year.

I imagine it will come from the bottom up. Your MAC and SunBelt types hearing noise first.

Also, it isn't as stark at UConn because they aren't slashing academics like a lot of other public schools

Maybe I'm wrong and nothing will change - but that Louisiana article is crazy.

 

[itgoeslike]

How was UConn profitable? The whole point here is subsidies.

I said UConn Football was "profitable" (with emphasis on quotes) in the past, but never suggested UConn athletics as a whole is/was profitable. There is no disagreement that the arms race has contributed greatly to the increase in expenses, especially in FBS schools, and even more so in the FBS schools that are not in a P5 conference.

 

[upstater]

I think the conversation will change when you leave school with an extra 4-5k in debt and some classmates make $15-20k over their career.

It changes the dynamic especially at schools where no one gives a damn about the sports.

This is the main point. As correct as the BOT member commenting might have been about the importance of sports for the future of UCincy, his point was incredibly hardheaded when the complainer pointed out that 20% of the money he shells out each year goes toward athletic subsidies. This kid is probably taking loans on that money. And he'll be paying interest and principal on that $1k a year for the next 20 years. Crazy.

 

[UConn Dan]

The way I look at it is that any loss on athletics is simply a marketing expense for the university as a whole. When you look at the Athletics dept deficits vs. the overall $2billion+ university budget, the expense is not as significant. As @Pudge pointed out, it's about brand building. As Susan has said, athletics is the front porch for our university.

Now, if students should directly shoulder (a portion of) that expense, I don't know. I suppose built into their tuition are marketing expenses, but I could be wrong.