Knight Commission: Athletics vs. academic spending too unbalanced

Source: USA Today

Calling the ever-increasing funding of college sports unsustainable, the Knight Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics issued a report Thursday that it hopes will "restore balance" between academic and athletics expenditures across the nation.

The 21-year-old reform-minded commission undertook an 18-month study of athletics finances, and its report outlines several recommendations it hopes will lead to more fiscal responsibility.

In a survey of 97 public Football Bowl Subdivision schools and the 11 conferences in the subdivision, the commission found that athletics spending between 2005 and 2008 increased at a rate that's an average of four to 11 times greater than spending on academics.

Median athletic spending on sports at the schools grew by 38% during the three-year period, while median academic spending grew 20%.



Read more: http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/other/2010-06-17-knight-commission-says-athletics-academics-spending-unbalanced_N.htm

Athletic programs should be eliminated entirely. They can be included as an adjunct to PE programs, but that's more than enough.

I'd like to PE departments eliminated, as well.

PE is available in college, even for non PE majors.

What am I not seeing here?

The numbers don't add up, but that won't stop reporters from parroting them.

That's easy.

What the report actually says. Take away that and what's left is the article. Reporters and numbers? :rofl:

Figure 2 gives "academic spending per FTE student 2008" and "athletics spending per athlete 2008" and lists the ratio of academic spending per FTE to athletics spending per athlete (okay, let's ignore that an athlete may not be a FTE for the entire year, that merging part-timers into single FTEs might lead to squirrelly results, etc., etc.). Nonetheless, the ratios are headed by "athletics spending per athlete outpacing academic spending per student by 4 to 11 times."

Now, this is likely to be true. Athletics spending includes transportation, room/board, scholarships, training, equipment, stipend, and who knows what all; academics includes just that--scholarships, but not necessarily scholarships that cover non-academic fees; it includes faculty salaries, I'm guessing, as well as other academics-related things. Of course, athletes contribute to the student FTE numbers, so their spending is actually higher per student.

Report's here: http://www.knightcommissionmedia.org/images/restoring_the_balance_2010.pdf

I always find it annoying when a newspaper article is cited when the original source is just seconds away in Google. The newspaper articles most often mis-cite the original, try to digest it (resulting primarily in reader dyspepsia), and include far fewer details per the reporters' biases.

That would make it revenue neutral in terms of the schools' education mission

What dept do you teach in? I teach in the music department, which is perpetually underfunded. Athletics has a boatload of money and, thus, great power to influence where and how money is spent. When it comes time to decide where new professorships might be installed, athletics get first choice. When a new facility or renovation is to be made, athletics has premium seats at the table. Why? Because their donors are very important to the school and their income stream is paramount. We're told we wouldn't have what few scholarships we have if it weren't for athletics, but this isn't true. Our scholarships come from generous donors who earmark their gifts for the music department. A general fund donation will see their fund go towards administrative concerns who always favor athletics.

If the school's top donors were to the music department, I suspect athletes would quibble about dilapidated gear and neglected fields. Their students might be on a music scholarship as some of our music students are on scholarships from other disciplines.

The fact is that the public likes athletics and tends to give more to a school with a robust athletic program. However, it should be established by the school's board that funds donated are for the purpose of educating students rather than bolstering a mighty athletic money-making machine. I do not begrudge students who study and practice athletics as part of a liberal arts education, nor educators who specialize in the practice of physical exercise and discipline. But an institution of learning is not a capitalist endeavor where making money is the primary goal and students are a means to that end. Educated students ARE the goal, and athletics is but one facet in achieving that goal. In the end, the money a school needs to thrive, I believe, will come from the grateful and thriving successes of the well-rounded students who leave the doors of the school as better people in all aspects of their lives.

Peace

Most lose considerable amounts of money. Perennial football and basketball champions get enough in TV contracts to end up in the black. Every other program runs in the red, with many athletic expenses hidden in other parts of the school budget. Stadium maintenance, for example, is a university expense, not billed to the athletic programs.

and endless amounts to stabilize the field which was swampy --


And they did that while hiring a lawyer to attack the police officers' union --

refusing to give them a contract -- and only offering cuts in benefits.

The ONLY thing that seems important to over 50% of the students and parents is the Friday night football game!

Our city school spent millions (A bit over 3 IIRC) on building a football stadium while the computer lab didn't have enough computers, and the ones they had were nearly a decade old, they couldn't afford textbooks, really poor lab equipment(Including stuff like gas burners that can do damage), and totally screwed up plumbing and wiring. The same year they were trying to get rid of a bunch of teachers because they couldn't afford to keep them.

Goodness me, when I was growing up in Ambridge PA during the 60s, the town's big event was the Friday Night High School Football games. And we had people running for the School Board who made it clear that a winning football team was their #1 priority.

It seems like most people in Texas think that football is more important than academics because "the only way a kid here will ever bee successful is by being a professional athlete".

It is entertainment, and not really physical prowess.

Keeping it in athletics distorts the overall priorities of college athletic programs, harming much less lucrative sports

Lastly, college athletes really are media celebrities above all else