To what extent would the survival of universities depend on athletics?

[bclintonk]

<p>

The “operates separately” part is rarely true. Almost all college athletic departments receive a subsidy from the university, as previously noted. In many cases, this subsidy is tens of millions of dollars per year. In addition, there are indirect subsidies as well in many cases.

</p>

<p>As generalizations, these statements are more or less true. But just to be clear on the specifics, USA Today identified 23 university athletic departments that generated more operating revenue (independent of subsidies) than operating expenses. In other words, even apart from any subsidies, their athletic departments were operating in the black. Not surprisingly, these include many of the perennial football powers (Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State, Nebraska, Florida, Florida State, Alabama, LSU, Texas, Texas A&M, Oklahoma, Oregon, Washington) or basketball powers (Indiana, Kentucky) or both (Michigan State). </p>

<p>The thrust of the USA Today story was that even some of these “profitable” (= surplus-generating) athletic programs were receiving additional subsidies from the university’s general fund or other sources, even though they didn’t need it because their operating revenues (apart from subsidies) exceeded their operating expenditures. Well, this is an interesting fact, but it doesn’t mean these athletic programs are a drain on the university budget. In some cases the “subsidies” are quite small, and represent differences in how certain costs should be accounted for. For example, USA Today said Michigan’s athletic department received a “subsidy” of $259K, representing the cost of an academic tutoring center on the athletic campus, to help student-athletes keep up with their academic work. The university deemed this an academic expense and charged it to the general fund budget, while USA Today thought it was properly an athletic department cost, and counted it as a subsidy. That’s an accounting quibble; I don’t really care how it’s classified, but the point is it’s a pretty trivial expense item in a university with a $5 billion annual budget and an athletic program that generates a $25 million athletic department operating surplus independently of any “subsidies.”</p>

<p>Some other, larger “subsidies” have equally reasonable explanations. Florida law mandates that public universities charge a sales tax on ticket sales, but then instructs them to divert the sales tax revenue to support women’s intercollegiate sports. OK, you can call that a subsidy if you think that’s a better accounting practice, but it’s not money that’s coming out of the university’s general fund, nor is it money that would otherwise be available to the university’s general fund. </p>

<p>I’m not certain about any of the others, but these two examples suggest USA Today went out of its way to find expenditures that it could classify as “subsidies,” and most of the “subsidies” it found were rather small-- 7 of the 23 programs had no subsidies, 2 more were less than $1 million, most were under $5 million, and all were in some sense not necessary, insofar as the athletic department was already operating in the black without the subsidies. You can perhaps criticize the value choices reflected in the decisions to provide those subsidies, but you can’t say the athletic department is dependent on, or a drain on, university resources.</p>

<p>Here’s the bottom line for me: the cheapest approach to intercollegiate athletics is to have none at all. The next cheapest approach is to have a successful, big-time program that pays for itself. In fact, you could say the net cost of these 23 schools’ athletic programs is zero, i.e., the same as having no intercollegiate athletics at all, but the universities (or the state, as in Florida’s case) elect to chip in a little something as a sweetener, even though the athletic department doesn’t need it. Where it gets expensive is if you have a large intercollegiate sports program ( = high expenditures) but low athletic revenue. The extreme case of the latter is Ivies and those Division III schools that maintain extensive intercollegiate athletic programs despite having fairly trivial athletic department revenue. In that case, it’s pretty much all subsidy, all the time. But I don’t criticize those schools for doing it if it’s something they value.</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/college/2013/05/07/ncaa-finances-subsidies/2142443/[/url]”>http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/college/2013/05/07/ncaa-finances-subsidies/2142443/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

[QuantMech]

<p>bclintonk has provided a very detailed and I believe accurate view of the finances of university athletics programs. When I looked at the question of whether the survival of universities depends on athletics, I immediately thought “dollars,” and thought that the question was based on the presumption that athletics brings in money for the university. The revenue sports at athletic powerhouses do bring in money, but it’s all for athletics. As bclintonk points out, sports are a money loser elsewhere; and there may be some internal university resources that are spent on athletics (and not generated by athletics) even at the powerhouse universities.</p>

<p>On the broader issue of whether universities could survive without athletics: Athletics are clearly important to a lot of people. A lot of people want to continue with competitive team sports in college. A lot of people want to be spectators. A lot of people want the psychological gain of being somehow associated with a winning team. A successful athletics program may increase the number of applications to the university, and it may also increase donations (though I only know about anecdotes in these areas). So I don’t foresee universities scrubbing their athletic programs any time soon.</p>

[BobWallace]

<p>

@bclintonk

Where it gets expensive is if you have a large intercollegiate sports program ( = high expenditures) but low athletic revenue. The extreme case of the latter is Ivies and those Division III schools that maintain extensive intercollegiate athletic programs despite having fairly trivial athletic department revenue. In that case, it’s pretty much all subsidy, all the time.

</p>

<p>Unfortunately, this is far from true.</p>

<p>In fact, the most “expensive” cases - with subsidies far larger than Division III schools - are Division I schools such as Nevada-Las Vegas, Delaware, Eastern Michigan, Central Florida, and Air Force, all with subsidies greater than $20M annually, far above the largest Division III subsidy. </p>

<p>You noted 23 schools making a profit from athletics, which represents the top 10% of the 227 Division I public schools cited in the report. The group with a greater subsidy than any of the supposedly “expensive” Division III schools, however, is a total of 55 schools, nearly 25% of the Division I publics.</p>

<p>

@bclintonk

But I don’t criticize those schools for doing it if it’s something they value.

</p>

<p>I suppose we simply have different values. I think it’s a terrible waste of resources for a sub-par public school like Nevada-Las Vegas to pour $32,000,000 per year of university funds into Division I athletics, when clearly there are other areas of the university that could better use those resources. But they “value” this, so we mustn’t criticize them?</p>

<p>Setting aside the issue of values, what exactly is your point in highlighting the most profitable athletic departments? Is it your contention that they are in fact dependent on athletics for survival? The point of discussion in this thread is whether or not colleges are dependent on athletics for survival. Clearly the schools that are losing money on sports do not depend on them for survival; in fact, quite the opposite: the sports depend on the school for survival. So that just leaves the profitable programs, and I see no evidence that any of those 23 cited schools depend on their athletic programs for survival, but perhaps you have insights I am missing.</p>

[bclintonk]

<p>

@BobWallace

I suppose we simply have different values. I think it’s a terrible waste of resources for a sub-par public school like Nevada-Las Vegas to pour $32,000,000 per year of university funds into Division I athletics, when clearly there are other areas of the university that could better use those resources. But they “value” this, so we mustn’t criticize them?

</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>

Setting aside the issue of values, what exactly is your point in highlighting the most profitable athletic departments? Is it your contention that they are in fact dependent on athletics for survival?

</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>

[Catria]

<p>There are colleges who would be fiscally sound once one removes athletics, but whose (academic?) reputation would flounder to a shell of its former glory.</p>

[BobWallace]

<p>

@bclintonk

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.

</p>

<p>Since there are many, many public colleges in Division III, I took your blanket endorsement of their athletic subsidies as a blanket endorsement of all public college subsidies. Was that unfair? Perhaps, but I assumed that this broad, authoritative statement that all Division III public college athletic subsidies are beyond criticism should be extensible to Division I public colleges as well. Maybe if you could explain the fundamental difference that you feel exists between D-III public college subsidies and D-I public college subsidies, I can understand better how this interpretation was not “fair-minded”.</p>

<p>

@bclintonk

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>

<p>Well, these behemoths exist within the same monopsony as the wannabe’s, so whether they could perform as well without all the subsidized whipping boys is unknown. It’s also unknown whether they could be so profitable in general without their monopsonistic power and their collusion with the NFL, both of which are allowed to exist in the college realm when they would almost certainly not be in the business realm. Whether these controlled market conditions will be allowed to continue indefinitely remains to be seen.</p>

[bclintonk]

<p>

@BobWallace

I assumed that this broad, authoritative statement that all Division III public college athletic subsidies are beyond criticism should be extensible to Division I public colleges as well.

</p>

<p>Whoa, wait a minute! I never said anyone was “beyond criticism.” I said I don’t personally criticize them. There’s a huge difference between those two statements. </p>

<p>And I wasn’t specifically referring to “public” D-III colleges, which are actually quite rare, though they do exist. Here in Minnesota, for example, we have 18 D-III colleges, of which 17 are private. The 18th, the University of Minnesota-Morris, is a (rare) public LAC operating as part of the larger University of Minnesota system. It does have intercollegiate sports at about the same level as the private LACs in the region, against which it competes both athletically and for students. I have no problem with that; I don’t think intercollegiate athletics consume a disproportionate share of Minnesota-Morris’s budget, and without that athletic dimension I don’t think the school could plausibly represent itself as providing an affordable public alternative to the private LAC experience. Others may disagree, as is their prerogative. I’m not trying to tell anyone else who or what they may criticize.</p>

<p>

Maybe if you could explain the fundamental difference that you feel exists between D-III public college subsidies and D-I public college subsidies, I can understand better how this interpretation was not “fair-minded”.

</p>

<p>Generally speaking, intercollegiate athletics at D-III schools, public and private, is more like an extracurricular activity and less the public spectacle that it becomes at D-I schools. I have no problem with colleges and universities, public or private, subsidizing extracurricular activities, be it track and field, tennis, a debate team, a capella groups, theater groups, student orchestras, or whatever. I would hope they would allocate those funds wisely and well, supporting a mix of activities; that they would not spend more than they can reasonably afford; and that any funds going to athletics would be equitably apportioned between varsity sports and intramural and club sports. But frankly, I have neither the time nor the interest to stick my nose into every college’s business to examine their finances and second-guess their spending priorities. That’s the sense in which I “don’t criticize them” (my words). They need to manage their own finances, according to their own priorities. I’m not saying they shouldn’t be accountable; of course they should be accountable to their students, to the parents who are paying the bills, to their alumni, and to their trustees, and if they are public, to the taxpayers of the state. But I’m not going to insist that they be accountable to me, because frankly in most cases it’s not my concern. Again, I’m not going to criticize them; but I never said they were beyond criticism, and if their spending priorities are out of whack, they should be criticized by the parties affected.</p>

<p>It does concern me more if I’m sending my kids to the school; or if I’m otherwise supporting the school financially; or if I’m a taxpayer in the state. Then it becomes my business. But for the schools that fall into those categories, I’m reasonably satisfied at present. I do think my DD1’s (private) LAC spends a bit more on intercollegiate athletics than I’d like, and more than the norm for schools its size, but I also think she’s getting an outstanding education in return for our dollar, so I’m not going to gripe about it too much because clearly it’s not undercutting educational priorities. My own alma mater, which I support with modest financial contributions, is fully self-supporting and then some in its athletic programs; I’m cool with that, and frankly the knowledge that my contributions are going directly to support academics rather than athletics makes it much easier for me to contribute. Our state flagship’s athletic program gets a modest subsidy from the university (about 0.05% of the university’s budget), but it’s been declining annually as the university tries to wean the athletic department away from it. It’s at least going in the right direction, but it will probably take a couple of years of winning football to hit the break-even point. So I guess that makes us one of the wannabe’s in a conference where most schools are among the haves. But we’re close.</p>

[BobWallace]

<p>

@bclintonk

And I wasn’t specifically referring to “public” D-III colleges, which are actually quite rare, though they do exist.

</p>

<p>There are 84 public Division III colleges, or about 19-20% of the total of 442. I hope you’ll agree that the public D-III colleges are a proper subset of the D-III colleges, and that any blanket pronouncement regarding D-III colleges must certainly include the D-III public colleges, so I’m a little mystified that you seem to think that I was being misleading in some way by applying your generality to the public D-III colleges. </p>

<p>I also find it quite interesting that you characterize a fraction of 19-20% as “quite rare” when you have gone to such great pains to make certain that a 10% fraction of the public D-I schools are represented prominently in the discussion and absolutely cannot be treated as the exception rather than the rule. If 19-20% is “quite rare”, how would you characterize that 10% you were so concerned about? “Extremely rare”? “Practically nonexistent?” Help me out here.</p>

<p>

But frankly, I have neither the time nor the interest to stick my nose into every college’s business to examine their finances and second-guess their spending priorities.

</p>

<p>So, in short, you are not really qualified to comment on the finances of public D-III colleges. On that, at least, we agree.</p>

[dietz199]

<p>I think the even bigger question is why in the heck is our system of higher education tied to athletics AT ALL? It is a strange intermingled relationship that doesn’t exist anywhere else in the world.</p>

[sally305]

<p>I agree! I’d be happy to do away with college sports except at the intramural/recreational level.</p>

[OHMomof2]

<p>

I’d be happy to do away with college sports except at the intramural/recreational level.

</p>

<p>I’m not much of an athlete and didn’t participate in college myself, but I do think athletes enjoy competition beyond that which exists at their school, meaning intercollegiate sports, be they club sports or more serious leagues.</p>

[bclintonk]

<p>

@BobWallace

There are 84 public Division III colleges, or about 19-20% of the total of 442.

</p>

<p>I’m curious where you got that number, because I count fewer. I did encounter one sloppily-assembled search engine that listed 84, but some of these were clearly misclassified. For example, Bethany Lutheran College in Mankato, MN is definitely not public; we do have many Lutherans here in Minnesota, but we also believe in the separation of church and state, as the U.S. constitution and our own state constitution require. Same for Martin Luther College in New Ulm, MN; Mount Mary College in Milwaukee, WI; and Presentation College in Aberdeen, SD.</p>

<p>Still, 80 public D-III colleges is more than I had imagined. But it turns out they’re highly concentrated in a small handful of states: New York (26), New Jersey (9), Massachusetts (9), Wisconsin (9), and Pennsylvania (5) account for about 3/4 of the total. The Wisconsin schools are all units of the University of Wisconsin; the Pennsylvania schools are all satellite campuses of Pitt and Penn State; the New York schools are mostly units of SUNY and CUNY; and the Massachusetts and New Jersey schools are units of their respective states’ public university systems, the governance mechanisms of which I have not investigated. So my conclusion would be that if intercollegiate athletic subsidies at public D-III schools are a problem–and you haven’t yet persuaded me they are, given what you yourself acknowledge to be generally low levels of athletic spending by D-III schools–then that “problem” seems to be not so much a national problem, but a problem largely confined to a very small number of states and a very small number of state college systems. Forgive me if I don’t keep up on such details.</p>

<p>As for the football powerhouses, concededly they are few in number, but because of their prominence they are the first schools most people think of when people make wildly misleading and irresponsible sweeping statements about the nature of college athletic spending, and it turns out they’re mostly talking about small potatoes spending at small colleges that most most people have never heard of, located in a handful of states.</p>

[ericatbucknell]

<p>many of you are looking at the the wrong schools in searching for a possible answer. obviously ohio state and williams are going to continue to exist (and thrive as institutions) with or without athletics programs.</p>

<p>but what about the small private down the road with a 90% acceptance rate? the one that recruits all the local solid-but-not-terrifically-talented football players and runners and softball players–who almost invariably would have gone elsewhere if not for a chance to play their sports in college–year after year after year?</p>

<p>the school that currently relies on those recruited athletes to fill their freshman classes each fall? the school that knows those recruited athletes are far more likely than other students to live in revenue-generating dormitories and eat in revenue-generating dining halls? the school that carefully manages the financial aid budgets of its sports teams such that many of them are bringing in hordes of athletes paying MORE to attend than the average non-athlete?</p>

<p>now, perhaps the $3 million that school is spending on athletics could be better spent elsewhere, or at least well enough spent to not seriously threaten its tuition-dollar bottom line. but im not so sure thats a given.</p>

[Erin_s_Dad]

<p>

the school that carefully manages the financial aid budgets of its sports teams such that many of them are bringing in hordes of athletes paying MORE to attend than the average non-athlete?

Do you have any support for this statement? I’d like to see some data.</p>

[ericatbucknell]

<p>

Do you have any support for this statement? I’d like to see some data.

</p>

<p>there is literature out there on this, but i dont have it saved and dont have the time to track it down right now.</p>

<p>this usa today article from kevin kiley at inside higher ed does spend some time on the issue, however: [Colleges</a> use lacrosse to recapture suburban students ? USATODAY.com](<a href=“http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/education/story/2012-04-04/liberal-arts-colleges-lacrosse-students/54002080/1]Colleges”>http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/education/story/2012-04-04/liberal-arts-colleges-lacrosse-students/54002080/1)</p>

[Erin_s_Dad]

<p>While that’s an interesting article it doesn’t support part of your statement, namely that athletes pay MORE to attend than the average non-athlete.</p>

[BobWallace]

<p>

@bclintonk

I’m curious where you got that number, because I count fewer. I did encounter one sloppily-assembled search engine that listed 84, but some of these were clearly misclassified. For example, Bethany Lutheran College in Mankato, MN is definitely not public; we do have many Lutherans here in Minnesota, but we also believe in the separation of church and state, as the U.S. constitution and our own state constitution require. Same for Martin Luther College in New Ulm, MN; Mount Mary College in Milwaukee, WI; and Presentation College in Aberdeen, SD.

</p>

<p>Here are the 84 colleges. I’m not sure what sort of game you are playing by bringing up red herrings of Lutheran bible colleges I have never mentioned, much less claimed to be public.</p>

<p>

University of California-Santa Cruz
Eastern Connecticut State University
Purdue University-Calumet Campus
University of Maine at Farmington
University of Maine at Presque Isle
University of Southern Maine
St Mary's College of Maryland
University of Massachusetts-Boston
Massachusetts College of Liberal Arts
Salem State University
Keene State College
New Jersey City University
Ramapo College of New Jersey
Rutgers University-Camden
Rutgers University-Newark
The Richard Stockton College of New Jersey
CUNY Bernard M Baruch College
CUNY Brooklyn College
CUNY College of Staten Island
CUNY City College
CUNY Hunter College
CUNY John Jay College of Criminal Justice
CUNY Lehman College
CUNY Medgar Evers College
CUNY York College
SUNY College of Agriculture and Technology at Cobleskill
Farmingdale State College
SUNY Institute of Technology at Utica-Rome
SUNY at Fredonia
SUNY at Geneseo
State University of New York at New Paltz
SUNY College at Oneonta
SUNY College at Oswego
SUNY College at Potsdam
SUNY at Purchase College
SUNY College at Old Westbury
SUNY College at Plattsburgh
SUNY College of Agriculture and Technology at Cobleskill
Pennsylvania State University-Penn State Erie-Behrend College
Pennsylvania State University-Penn State Altoona
Pennsylvania State University-Penn State Berks
Pennsylvania State University-Penn State Harrisburg
Pennsylvania State University-Penn State Schuylkill
University of Pittsburgh-Bradford
University of Pittsburgh-Greensburg
Rhode Island College
The University of Texas at Dallas
The University of Texas at Tyler
Johnson State College
Lyndon State College
University of Mary Washington
University of Wisconsin-Superior
Maine Maritime Academy
Frostburg State University
Salisbury University
Bridgewater State University
Fitchburg State University
Framingham State University
University of Massachusetts-Dartmouth
Westfield State University
Worcester State University
University of Minnesota-Morris
Plymouth State University
Rowan University
Kean University
Montclair State University
The College of New Jersey
William Paterson University of New Jersey
Morrisville State College
SUNY College at Brockport
SUNY College at Buffalo
SUNY College at Cortland
SUNY Maritime College
United States Merchant Marine Academy
Castleton State College
Christopher Newport University
University of Wisconsin-Whitewater
University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire
University of Wisconsin-La Crosse
University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh
University of Wisconsin-Stout
University of Wisconsin-Platteville
University of Wisconsin-River Falls
University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point

</p>

<p>By my calculation, 84 colleges out of 442 gives slightly more than 19% of Division-III colleges that are public and therefore use public funding to subsidize their athletic programs. </p>

<p>

@bclintonk

As for the football powerhouses, concededly they are few in number, but because of their prominence they are the first schools most people think of when people make wildly misleading and irresponsible sweeping statements about the nature of college athletic spending, and it turns out they’re mostly talking about small potatoes spending at small colleges that most most people have never heard of, located in a handful of states.

</p>

<p>You seem to have gotten very confused. The only reason D-III is part of the discussion is because you brought it up. You made a blanket endorsement of all D-III athletic spending, which you characterized as “expensive” and at the “extreme” end of the subsidy scale. This broad endorsement must logically include spending public funds to subsidize athletic programs of the public D-III colleges. But now you seem uncertain as to whether you meant to endorse D-III athletic spending or merely to pronounce yourself unqualified to judge it.</p>

<p>The largest “expensive” D-III athletics program costs between $12-13M, and as I have pointed out there are 55 Division-I public programs where the subsidy exceeds this threshold. I made the assumption that these 55 programs in Division-I must logically be considered “expensive” as well. I pointed out several by name that I thought were particularly egregious. By my calculation, 55 out of 227 is slightly more than 24% of Division-I colleges that have publicly funded subsidies above this threshold of “expensive”. In addition, only 7 out of 227 receive absolutely no subsidy, so that makes 97% that are using public funds to subsidize the athletic programs. </p>

<p>I think the use of public funds to subsidize athletic programs is an important issue to consider, and should be treated with some level of careful consideration, as with all expenditures of public funds. I doubt that the arbitrary threshold mentioned above is the right one to choose for which programs to scrutinize, and in fact I selected it only for the purpose of getting out of the Div-III realm and back to Div-I programs that are more relevant to the discussion. There is certainly a point at which public subsidies for athletic programs delve into irresponsibility, such as the aforementioned UNLV program.</p>

<p>And really, I find the accusation of “wildly misleading and irresponsible sweeping statements about the nature of college athletic spending” humorous rather than threatening. Perhaps it’s best to chalk it up to a tendency towards hyperbole, such as the 19% = “quite rare” example.</p>