Pay the Coach Less and Hire More Professors?

Parents Forum
21

<p>The huge football programs at schools support all those title IX (and less major men's) sports that lose money. I believe that about half of the football programs in D1-A make money. If all the sports that don't support themselves were cut, then the revenue from the huge football team could go to academics.</p>

<p>As for the coach being worth the money... well, it's proven that a winning team will increase applications. VTech has experienced this. The program makes the school better. There's no way around it. If Southern Cal didn't have a football team, they wouldn't have as many applications, and therefore, a weaker pool to choose their incoming class from.</p>

<p>Further, sports are an important part of college. The students at Duke campout for basketball tickets. This builds love and passion for the school that hours in the library cannot.</p>

<p>When do alumni come back to the school? They come back for the football or basketball games. I would think that alumni that are in contact with the school are more likely to give the school more money than the alumni who have lost touch. The centerpiece of homecoming is always the football game.</p>

<p>Maybe not for everyone, but for a lot of students, sports are an important part of the college experience.</p>

<p>Here's some links regarding athletic costs:
<a href="http://www2.ncaa.org/media_and_events/association_news/ncaa_news_online/2004/12_06_04/front_page_news/4125n02.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www2.ncaa.org/media_and_events/association_news/ncaa_news_online/2004/12_06_04/front_page_news/4125n02.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p><a href="http://www.ncaa.org/news/2002/20020304/editorial/3905n50.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.ncaa.org/news/2002/20020304/editorial/3905n50.html&lt;/a>
This is a very good piece, that uses Tennessee as the example
"About $3 million annually is contributed to academic interests at the total UT campuses from priority football seating."
"Tennessee reported that the total number of donors increased by more than 2,500 individuals after the school's 1998 national championship in football. The participation rate for annual gifts also went from 17.9 percent to 18.5 percent at the same time the rate for most of our peer institutions decreased. Applications for admission also went up 20 percent for the next fall session."</p>

<p><a href="http://www.ncaa.org/news/2004/20040412/active/4108n02.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.ncaa.org/news/2004/20040412/active/4108n02.html&lt;/a>
speaks to the gaps between the bigtime schools and the smaller ones</p>

<p>And finally, it is possible to have sports programs that stress the student in student athlete, you just likely won't find them at the top of the top division. The NCAA has a new ranking to cover this as well. You can find that list here: <a href="http://chronicle.com/stats/apr/%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://chronicle.com/stats/apr/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

22

<p>This is a topic that always draws a lot of attention. To me I see athletic programs the way soccerguy315 does. Specifically, lets look at ND. They have a national television contract with NBC for all their home football games. The university receives a large income for all the publicity . . . publicity that other schools have to pay a handsome sum for. The university gets to run a nice promotional ad during halftime where they get their message out.</p>

<p>Carolyn talks about thinking like a marketing person in how you write your applications to schools. I agree with that wholeheartedly. The schools are doing the same. Many schools use their time on national or regional television to get the message out.</p>

<p>Granted the ad for the university is only about 1 minute but that is all that is required for other goods and services to get their message across. The objective is to get you to think about ND (or whatever school you choose to watch) in the emotional manner it is conveyed in the commercial.</p>

<p>Additionally, a few people have commented that the schools should not become the minor leagues for professional sports. How is that different than a student taking an intership with an employer or doing research in a particular subject? Is that always done for purely noble goals? Sometimes the objective is to build a background or a resume to get yourself employed at a job you love when you get out. That is especially true at the pre-professional schools, i.e. UPenn Nursing or Wharton Business . . . or MIT. </p>

<p>Let's look at MIT. When MIT was founded the criticism of the school was that it was really just a "trade" school. Today all the Ivy league schools are trying to beef up their engineering programs. As are many others.</p>

<p>Many people study the graduation rates and the average starting salaries of graduates. Though it pains all of us that the more noble goals of an institution are not always at the forefront of everything they do the schools are a business also. They want highly paid graduates who will contribute back to the school. Sometimes that is even the athletes.</p>

<p>The famous Harvard Professor Howard Gardner lists athletics as one of the 7 intelligences. These are (with the athletic one defined):</p>

<p>Verbal/Linguistic Intelligence</p>

<p>Logical/Mathematical Intelligence</p>

<p>Intrapersonal Intelligence</p>

<p>Interpersonal Intelligence</p>

<p>Visual/Spatial Intelligence</p>

<p>Musical/Rhythmic Intelligence</p>

<p>Bodily/Kinesthetic Intelligence - Ability to use the body to express emotion as in dance, body language, and sports. The ability to learn by doing.</p>

<p>It appears that most of the other intelligences are appreciated as appropriate ECs. To this day I am not sure why the athletic one raises so many hackles. At the end of the day I believe in the Greeks idea of "mens sana in corpore sano", health in mind and body. Athletics is a path to this ideal.</p>

23

<p>catherine's point is important--in some programs, sports money stays in sports. Academics are separate. </p>

<p>The money that comes in from revenue sports pay for all the other sports, including scholarships and coaches' salaries. Even the capital budget (for facilities) is separate. Totally separate budgets, money is not mixed, you don't take from one to pay for the other.</p>

<p>If anything, sports helps the academic budget, doesn't hurt it. Athletic scholarships paid for by the atheltic department flow to the academic units as tuition dollars. And as others have noted, it does something for alumni loyalty, attracting applications, and so on. </p>

<p>I assume that before anyone STOPS donating to their school for "wasting" money on a new stadium, they have determined that it was, in fact, money taken away from an academics. Same with anyone writing a cranky editorial about coach salaries. </p>

<p>I have no quarrel with asking hard questions about priorities, and about whether colleges have any real business being in big-time athletics. James Duderstadt, Michigan's former president, has had some really interesting things to say about this. But it is false to assume that athletics takes money away from the academic enterprise.</p>

24

<p>Yes, the Title IX law has become a significant factor in the distribution of money from the college athletic department. Arguably, it's the motivation (in no small part) for colleges to depart one athletic league in order to join another; so to receive more collective revenue from your presumably more powerful and successful new collegues. That's why the old Atlantic Coast Conference recruited Boston College and U of Miami. More bowl revenue and additional revenue from a new league football championship game equals more $$ for womens teams and non-scholarship sports. In fact, the Virginia state legislature saw a local advantage of an expanded ACC and essentially cohersed the U of Virginia leadership into voting "no" on expansion unless rival Virginia Tech was invited to join the conference.</p>

<p>Back to the original discussion of the newspaper editorial, it's seems that athletic success does do something to enhance a school's academic profile, however subjective that improved standing may be. In recent years, places like U of Connecticut, Gonzaga U, Northwestern U and even the ivy-walled U of Pennsylvania admit that athletic success initiated much more interest and investment in the university [obvioulsy, Penn's academic profile didn't need much improvement, if any].</p>

25

<p>some universities are now building "recreation" centers for the student populations. these are very popular with the students and used in the recruitment of new students whether they are athletes or not. the rec centers are workout facilities with indoor tracks, nautilus equipment, bball, vball courts, etc. </p>

<p>spoonyj - the university you mention has one of these new rec centers - where did the money come from to build it?</p>

26

<p>I love big time college sports, but you can't avoid the fact that most of the "profits" enjoyed by the schools are the result of fixing the cost of labor. The schools run the NCAA, the NCAA limits both number and amount of scholarships and the schools thereby have a fixed below market labor cost. Wouldn't you love to run a business where you could unilaterally fix your labor costs? Yes I know the kids receive a "free" education - but on the other hand what would Carson Palmer et al be "worth" on an open market? All of a sudden you wouldn't have quite as much much available to pay coaches. For further evidence, consider the recent move to 12 games in D1 football - each player is now increasing their "work" by (at least) 9% and the college is getting another potential multi-million dollar payday (each home game at the Big House in Ann Arbor brings in $5-6 million in gate receipts alone). In addition, I am fairly certain there is a statistical certainty that each additional game played by a college FB player increases dramatically the risk of serious or short term injury. Meanwhile, the increase in the number of games brought no increase in roster size (i.e., greater employment), nor increase in "payroll" - it is still just tuition, room and board. I can just imagine the outcry in the humanities department if these labor practices were used in a third world country, let alone the US, but in NCAA athletics, particulaly FB and BB, they barely register.
I am part of the problem, I know, loyally attending home games, watching on TV, etc., but I continue to be amazed that the sanctimonious adminstrations are given a free pass on this.</p>

27

<p>Once again the fact is that there is nobody forcing any athlete to accept the terms and conditions of an athletic scholarship. In fact far more athletes desire scholarships than the number available. The limits in numbers are to provide some balance among the schools--otherwise the richer schools might stockpile players just to keep them away from other schools--which is what was happening before the limits.</p>

<p>Unless you have not been paying attention, the value of a full ride has been increasing as the cost of a college education has been increasing faster than inflation for decades. In addition the athlete receives some of the finest coaching, training, and travel accomodations that money can buy. Much better than the lower levels of pro baseball or the minor leagues of other sports.</p>

<p>Carson Palmer was a BAD choice. He easily could have turned pro last year but CHOSE to come back to USC. So to him the aspects of the college game were worth it.</p>

28

<p>MAny good points here. I very much enjoy college football. it is probably overly commericalized, etc. </p>

<p>I think the missed point may be that it shouldnt be pay the coach less and hire (or pay more to ) to professors, but leave the coaches salary alone and pay the profs more. Not a bad idea to have a foundation ot increase proefessors salaries.....</p>

29

<p>Apologies; in my post I meant "Matt Leinart", not "Carson Palmer". My point, and Barrons', remain the same.</p>

30

<p>Correct--big whoops for both of us but we somehow knew who we were intending to discuss. All those USC QB's look and play alike.</p>

31

<p>"Once again the fact is that there is nobody forcing any athlete to accept the terms and conditions of an athletic scholarship."</p>

<p>There sure is if s/he wants to play. Not just somebody, but an entire cartel. In the private sector, it's called "restraint of trade". (Maybe there should be a "buy out" clause for those who don't graduate?" ;))</p>

32

<p>There's always D-3. The NCAA has been challenged many times on their rules and not lost. Maybe its more like a union where everyone gets the same deal whether they are a star or a benchwarmer. ;-)</p>

33

<p>The union analogy is not that far off the mark. Unfortunately, the student athletes don't even have the charade of a business manager negotiating for them on the other side. The universities are on both sides of the table, either directly as the "employing" Univ or indirectly through the wage-setting NCAA. You are right, it has been held lawful and the kids can elect not to participate, but it makes me want to gag every time I see one of those "student-athlete" PSAs during a game.</p>

34

<p>The NCAA is French? Who knew.</p>

35

<p>A college education with all expenses paid is worth $30-$50k a year. The value of high level coaching and training is also worth something--say at least $10,000 a year to be conservative. Ask a parent of a kid paying for a skating or gymnastics coach what it costs to have one of the tops in the field. So a kid out of HS is getting a package worth $40K or more a year for working part-time. Not too shabby in my book.</p>

36

<p>PublicIvyDad,</p>

<p>You talk a bunch about how fixed labor costs and how the athletes are not represented and their "pay" is not that great. However, tuition, room and board is increases at a rate far greater than the inflation rate so the "value" of what the athletes are receiving is going up. </p>

<p>What about the non-revenue generating sports? Should those students pay a user fee to play their sport in college? Kind of like a lab fee? I don't think so but who knows.</p>

<p>Finally, the schools allow students to perform unpaid research. The University's Technology Transfer group may license some of the patents generated from that research. How are these students compensated? Often they have to pay tuition for the ability to perform this research. At least the athletes get something of value for their effort . . .</p>

37

<p>Eagle79 - I am not discounting the value of the education. For many for whom pro sports will never be an option there may be a fair trade off. But for the revenue sports, you can't just look at the "compensation" paid, but also the revenue growth on the other side. I did some real quick web research - these are not definitive, just representative, and I guess you'll have to take my word I didn't go looking for stats to support my point. But here goes:
U Chicago tuition plus room and board in 1994-95 was reported in their "chronicle" to have been $25,310 ($18,930 tuition and $6,380 RB - I ignored a $306 fee they also reported). In 2003-04, the same source said the total was $37,854 ($28,589 tuition and $9,165 RB; no mention of fees). If my HP 12-C still works, that calculates to a 4.5% per annum increase.
The Knight Foundation reported that gross revenues for the four major bowl games in 1994-95 was $48.6 million. The revenue for those games in 2003-04 was $147.7. That is a 13.15% increase over the same period.
I don't have the time to fully research this, but this to me at least suggests that while their costs were going up, revenues were increasing even faster. Maybe the athletes are still being treated "fairly", but there is a question there I think.
And as to the non-revenue sports, I have a personal interest in men's track. Div 1 allows 12.5 scholarships total for men's track and field, including cross country - throwers, sprinters, jumpers, distance, all combined. Not much exploitation there - and yet D1 schools across the country are cutting men's track for cost and gender equity reasons. Many track and field guys would gladly pay to play, just to keep the program.
And as to the research issue, that at least is fundamental to the educational mission of a university - maybe some justification to that. But I am sure there is more than one horror story out there of a great idea generated by an undergrad or grad student "borrowed" by the prof or the Univ. A topic for a different thread I suppose.
Again, I don't disagree that for the vast majority of college athletes the schol money is a fair, maybe too fair, bargain. But for the big revenue sports, I am convinced the athletes are in some sense of the word being exploited.</p>

38

<p>We can talk about the 'value' of what the athletes are getting, i.e., an expensive college education, but in reality, many are not getting that. The graduation rates, particularly for football, are appallingly low, not much more than 50%. So, it doesn't seem to me that the value of that is going to do these young men very much good, from what I've read. </p>

<p>It would be interesting to know how many actually get degrees which are, in any way, preparing them for a job, other than football, or even providing them with a good education. How do they handle a college courseload in addition to the responsibilities of playing for one of these high-pressured college athletic teams? I don't know if things have changed in the world of college athletics today but I know that years ago, two of our friends were on 'scholarships' for hockey and were forbidden to bring anything at all school-related on road trips. Both objected and their families stepped forward and paid for their fees so that they were actually able to do their schoolwork as they saw fit. Sadly, not many families are in a position to do this.</p>

39

<p>PublicIvyDad,</p>

<p>I guess my real point is that for some reason athletics not viewed as legitimate in an academic setting while other ECs that are not necessarily part of the educational mission are, i.e. Music, Theatre, etc.</p>

<p>Some students want to grow up to be coaches. Others want to play the sport, similar to going to study under professor X who is a leader in his/her field. For example, what aspiring HS quarterback wouldn't jump at the chance to play for Pete Carroll or Charlie Weis?</p>

<p>Almost all professional athletes play in college beforehand. Hockey is an exception because of the number of foreign players. Baseball, the sport where you go from HS into the minor leagues, is changing dramatically. Read the book Moneyball, the new "wisdom" is to draft players out of college instead of high school.</p>

<p>College is used pre-professionally for almost every field of work now a days. Why shouldn't athletics be one of them?</p>

40

<p>Hear, Hear, Eagle, I totally agree with your post.</p>