<br>
<blockquote> <p>Besides ticket sales and stuff, Athletics bring in a lot of $$ in terms of donations from alumni.<<</p> </blockquote>
<br>
<p>Agree that sports can keep alumni feeling connected to their alma mater. Connected often leads to $$.</p>
<p>I am very much against universities spamming students to come to their school. It makes the school look bad that they have to solicit to get any enrollment. I think that the money should be used to promote research, fund scholarships, and lower tuition. I agree to a certain extent that having good athletic programs gives the students a sense of spirit in their school, but spending over 2 million dollars in athletic recruitment? $2,005,700/21,369 students = $94/student</p>
<p>I wonder what the per student cost is for university marketing? It is impossible to reach any conclusion about these recruiting numbers without comparing them to the university budgets as a whole.</p>
<p>here is the 2004 budget report from UT Knoxville:
[quote]
* University of Tennessee:
o Research Budget (2004):
+ Main campus: $109,525,996
+ Institute of Agriculture: $26,987,367
+ Experiment Station: $9,262,186
+ Extension: $14,000,673
+ Veterinary Medicine: $3,724,508
+ Institute for Public Service: $5,882,079
+ Space Institute: $2,552,297
+ Total: $307.9 million (2006)[10]
o Total Budget: $1.4 Billion (2006)[10]</p>
<pre><code>* Oak Ridge National Laboratory (operated jointly by The University of Tennessee and Battelle Memorial Institute):
o Research budget: $1.06 Billion (2006)[11]
o Total Budget: $2.5 Billion (2004)[12]
</code></pre>
<p>
[/quote]
</p>
<p>But what part of that budget says how much they spend on marketing to draw students to the university? That's the part I am thinking MIGHT put the athletic recruiting into perspective. For example, if the university spent 10 million on marketing (driving up applications) and recruiting top students and 1 million on athletic recruiting, it wouldn't look so bad, but if they spent 1 million on athletic and only 2 million on regular marketing/recruiting, it looks a lot worse. Well, I don't really care enough to look numbers up, I was just thinking that a closer comparison between individual departments and the university recruiting budgets might be informative for those who do care.</p>
<p>When Oakland University, a public school in my area, was in the NCAA tournament, apps rose more than a little the following year. I get frustrated about full scholarships for students who are weak academically but can kick/throw a ball ... but I can't deny that the athletic programs do serve an important role in drawing students to a college.</p>
<p>Recruiting budgets are out of line, but they really are a small part of overall spending. I am not sure that learning Tennessee and Notre Dame spend a lot on recruiting is all that meaningful - both their men's basketball and football programs must engage in quite a bit of out of state recruiting - the in-state population doesn't produce that many great players. Notre Dame especially must take a nation wide recruiting posture given their academic requirements. </p>
<p>Take for example University of Texas - situated in one of the best recruiting states in the nation. They spend, however, out of their operating budget, more than 200k per athlete. That number blows me away. </p>
<p>And look at what their coaches get paid: </p>
<p>10 UT coaches earn more than $200,000, including baseball coach Augie Garrido ($610,000) and women's track coach Beverly Kearney ($258,000). The average salary of a full professor at UT-Austin in 2006-07 was $121,200. UT-Austin President William Powers Jr., earns $577,500.</p>
<p>Think there's a values problem with college athletics? You better believe it. And it isn't fair to pick on Texas - take any of the top 25 athletic factories, and the same theme applies.</p>
<p>mam - let's not pick on just the big-time sports schools. I worked for an Ivy many years ago, and at the time, the AD was paid more than the president. Hardly an athletic factory. Sports are a BIG part of many universities.
So with the "values problem" you reference, are you saying that colleges should pull out of or downplay sports? Well, there are enough schools that do to satisfy those who want a purely academic experience. But some kids like to learn AND enjoy sports and I don't see that there's anything wrong with that model - especially if a school has a self supporting program. Let's face it. For plenty of kids, these games are fun and inspire pride...and it continues for years after they graduate.
BTW, I went to a school that was void of any good sports teams - and I think I missed out!</p>
<p>
[quote]
What a waste of money...
Why not use this money for research or something else of more importance?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Research didn't raise that money. No, it's not a waste of money. Athletics earned the money; athletics spends the money. That makes too much sense I guess...</p>
<p>Without college athletics, my major would not be available at many schools. Of the 5 semesters I will be in the program, I will be assigned to a sport in the university's athletic department for 4 of the 5 semesters. The other one will be spent at a local high school.</p>
<p>Believe me, if it was a waste of money, then the universities wouldn't be subjecting themselves to paying high salaries to superstar coaches, inviting the NCAA to do compliance checks of every single recruiting phone call made, putting up with the problems of various athletes, etc. They do it because there is some return for it. Perhaps the fame of the football team encourages a loyal fan to build a new physics lab or endow a chair for research. I don't know much, but I do know whenever a top coach becomes available the university presidents stand in line to offer jobs so there is definitely something of value in it for them. And it probably isn't simply a love of football or basketball (the only two revenue sports).</p>
<p>I guess all these schools just do it because they like to. </p>
<p>It's a business venture. You better damn well be sure that most profit.</p>
<p>Even Kstate - hoops with Michael Beasley and Bill Walker -- I'd like to see how much money they brought in last year.</p>
<p>"As an accomplished athlete, you have a special skill you are bringing to a community that values it. We think we have built a good athletic ethic at Unidentified Ivy League School, one based on the belief that athletics can be an important factor in the development of a whole person."</p>
<p>This is from a letter a high school recruit received. Ivies value athletics. If you don't agree with that philosophy, keep looking. For schools to attract the student/athletes they desire, money will be spent.</p>
<p>tone ranger - I went to school at one of the schools listed in the recruiting list. The highest ranked one by far, if you must know. </p>
<p>And I was a scholarship athlete - All American in high school and college.<br>
I am not anti-sports, but the NCAA at the Division 1 level essentially is sponsoring no cost farm teams for many professional sports. And I don't know how major college presidents justify it - except, of course, they have to.</p>
<p>Of the 20 or so sports most major colleges have maybe 3 have any real connection to a well paid pro sport. Those also happen to be the ones that fund the other 17 sports through their profits.</p>
<p>mam- thanks for the clarification.
But, if the football and/or basketball programs are self supporting, and in fact fund other low profile sports, why do the presidents need to justify anything?
Seems like a good deal to me...</p>
<p>For those that claim that the "money" sports support other teams at the school:
From the New York Times - 8-24-07
"One Sunday morning every fall, members of the Penn State fencing team spend hours scraping nacho cheese, chewing tobacco, peanut shells and cigarette butts off the floor of the university’s 107,000-seat football stadium.</p>
<p>Cleaning after a home game is an annual fund-raising ritual for the team, a coed varsity program that is one of the most successful in national competition. Unfortunately for Division I athletes in sports like fencing, winning championships does not guarantee financial stability."</p>
<p>well, there are a number of schools that are spreading the wealth...perhaps not to fencing teams though...
The</a> most valuable college football teams - University of Notre Dame : News & Information</p>
<p>The money comes from the boosters. The boosters are 99% dedicated to sports. Without sports, no boosters. It's as simple as that. I used to work in the summer for one of the schools listed and got to understand the entire process. And also, without boosters, no money for that ND science hall, research opportunities, etc = millions of valuable dollars lost. Sports never "lose" money for a school. It only brings back profits. Think about it. If cumulatively, sports lost money, why continue it? I've learned the ins-and-outs of this process and it's really fascinating.</p>
<p>This was posted last fall...</p>
<p>Inside</a> College Sports' Biggest Money Machine - WSJ.com</p>
<p>Great article, Toneranger. </p>
<p>I might add that three female Olympic fencers in Bejing are from Notre Dame. One grad, one current student, and one incoming. Notre Dame athletes are fully supported in their sports, whether it be football or one of the Olympic sports that typically don't have a big fan base.</p>