<p>
</p>
<p>I think if you had read what I said in a fair-minded way, it would have been clear to you that my comment was directed at D-III schools and Ivies, which I don’t criticize for subsidizing inter-collegiate athletics, something they clearly value. Perhaps I should have added, “provided they have the money to pay for it.” I intended no comment one way or the other on UNLV. I wasn’t aware that they spend that much on intercollegiate athletics. I agree, that seems like a terrible waste.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, not at all. I never said that, nor did anything I said in any way imply that. I was merely correcting some misimpressions that might have been left by some comments on this thread that described the finances of college athletics with an overly broad brush.</p>
<p>I don’t think any college is dependent on athletics for “survival.” I do think some schools depend on athletics for a substantial part of their self-identity and public image, and without athletics they would need to evolve to be something else. And this is just as true of some D-III schools (Williams comes to mind) as it is of major conference football powerhouses. </p>
<p>I do think some schools that are heavily subsidizing their athletic programs fall into the trap of thinking intercollegiate athletics is more important than it is. If they have the money to pay for it, as the Ivies and some well-heeled D-III schools do, I have no problem with it, as long as they maintain some perspective and are also able to support a full array of non-athletic extracurricular activities. (I didn’t mean to suggest, by the way, that the subsidies are biggest in Ivy League and D-III programs in absolute terms, only that such programs typically bring in so little athletic department revenue that the ratio of subsidy to athletic department revenue is extremely high, virtually all subsidy in some cases).</p>
<p>I do think subsidies for intercollegiate athletics are more problematic where the subsidies are large and the school is not well financed (e.g., can’t meet full need for its students, or in the case of a public university, can’t meet full need for its in-state students), and especially so when the school is public. I do think the public has some legitimate interest even in the finances and spending priorities of private colleges and universities insofar as we lavish extremely valuable tax subsidies on them and provide them with a variety of other direct and indirect subsidies out of the public purse, but I’m less concerned about the private colleges and universities than about the public ones where taxpayer support is more direct (though in many cases a smaller fraction of the school’s budget than many people suppose) and the public mission clearer. I think many of these schools fall into the trap of thinking intercollegiate athletics is the “glue” that holds the school together, sparking interest on the part of prospective students, inspiring school spirit in the student body, and generating loyalty and continued support in alums and the broader community (= “fan base”) which can then be parlayed into alumni contributions and political support for legislative appropriations. Unfortunately for such schools, that’s often fool’s gold; yes, the football team has fans among the prospies, students, alums, and broader community, and there may even be deep emotional bonds formed around that, but it doesn’t translate so easily into cash. Unable to afford both bread and circuses, they opt for circuses, hoping the circuses will somehow generate enough money for bread; but in fact, as much as people love a circus, the circuses don’t even pay for themselves, which leaves even less money for bread. And in the process, some of these schools lose sight of their primary mission, which is to educate, not to entertain.</p>
<p>But again, I’d point out it’s a very different situation at the smallish number of D-I schools where the athletic program generates sufficient revenue to pay its own way, i.e., at many of the perennial football powerhouses and a smaller number of men’s basketball powerhouses. The financial problems are generally not at the powerhouses, but at the wannabe’s.</p>