Letters to the Editor
-
In response:
The difference is, they don't make tens of (hundreds of?) millions of dollars off the average dude that dropped out of his Psych program in Junior year, but they sure do make TONS of money on them athletes
Well, actually, they don't. "Universities make most of their money off athletics" is probably THE biggest myth about the American university system.
The truth is that for the vast majority of universities, athletics makes little or no money. And I'm not just talking about Division III schools here. I work in the fundraising department of a D-I university. Our men's basketball team and men's hockey team have both recently been in the NCAA tournaments...and I can tell you we make no money off athletics. We probably lose money when all is said and done. Our men's hockey team struggles to draw 1,000 to a game; when I got here our men's basketball team did the same, but now we draw a "whopping" 1,500 a game. And those are our best tickets. Our women's basketball team drew 250 last night. Go to a soccer or volleyball game and you can count the number of spectators (who get in for free!) on two hands. Sponsorships? Even with the NCAA tournament bids, we're not getting many. Remember, we're a D-I university with a lot of recent success. Our rivals down the road are doing a lot worse than we are.
I have a friend who works at a I-A school whose name I won't mention. Their athletic department is close to broke. Their football team improved this year but the NCAA is threatening to drop them to I-AA if they can't draw more fans. Friend says that it might be preferable to drop football rather than that happen. Obviously football isn't making them a pile of cash.
There are only about 60 schools where athletics makes money, but even there it's not a lot. I went to a BCS school (Penn State) where football isn't king, it's KING. And even there football makes a lot less money than you'd think. Until recently football profits were funding all of the rest of the athletics department. What was left over sounds like a lot--about $25 million or so--but keep in mind that there are over 80,000 students in the Penn State University system. If each of them are paying an average of $6,000 in tuition, that's $480 million in annual revenues, which dwarfs football. (See, it really is the psych major dropouts who are paying the university's bills!) On top of that are the billion-, yes, billion-dollar fundraising campaigns run by your top universities. A colleague of mine at University of Virginia is overseeing a $3 billion dollar campaign. Think a few basketball tickets are going to pay the way if that campaign fails?
Bottom line is this: most universities don't make money off the backs of their athletes. Athletes actually graduate at a HIGHER rate than the average student. If anything articles like this do little more than denigrate student-athletes, who are able to balance their studies (and believe me, the myth of the "underwater basketweaving major" is false too, at least at most places) and their playing time. That's the story that should be told, and shame on you and Kaufman for taking the easy cheap shot.
-
response to the response
Hey Third Man,
Well you clearly have alot more first hand knowledge than I do (i.e none whatsoever). I went to school in Canada at a school without athletic scholarships and where athletics take a VERY back seat to academics (the end result? Our football team hasn't won this century, but we did loose Mike Keenan onto the hockey coaching landscape...so at least we have that going for us :). What struck me about your response is that even if the money isn't as much as you say, it's still TONS more than my school gets (a school of 80,000 mind you) from athletics. Maybe football isn't allowing the executive committee roll around on a bed of crisp hundred dollar bills, but it certainly pays a huge percentage of the general operating budget.
Maybe it's not as much money made as people would suspect, but that doesn't change the fact that there's still alot of money being made on the backs of students that are paid nothing, and often (not always) left by the wayside once their utility to the school is over.
cheers
-
Pointless?
International Bowl, Toronto
Rutgers, 971
Ball State, 942
This might just be the most pointless bowl of 'em all.
Hey, I resemble that remark!
-
old time rivalries
I notice that King managed to reverse field long enough to pick against the baby bruins in Las Vegas. Old habits die hard, eh?
-
dabaser: BTW I am a Black Seminole( We never signed treaty with US Government)..
I am glad you finally came to your senses and started to follow the leader in here.....
-
I'll take that paltry, insignificant 25M off your hands
What was left over sounds like a lot--about $25 million or so...
It sounds like a lot because it is a lot, and it is being generated through the efforts of, what, 60-70 kids? Sure, the entire school revenue may be larger, but I am not sure what that has to do with the merits of the argument that the kids should be paid for the money they do bring in.
There are only about 60 schools where athletics makes money, but even there it's not a lot.
I'm certainly willing to reserve most of my ire for the schools that are, in fact, financially rewarded; they are the ones actually, successfully taking advantage of this terrible system. The others are either not trying (good for them and us) or not succeeding.
(Here are a few of those schools, btw: http://www.fanblogs.com/ncaa/005403.php).
-
Slightly unfair
As an Illinois fan and alumni, I protest the inclusion of Illinois in this. It looks bad for the Illini, but the current coach, Ron Zook, has only been coach for 3 years (that is, this is his 3rd year). Thus, the problems mostly occurred prior to his arrival.
These ratings should also be expressed in some easy-to-follow approach. Like percentages?
-
On $25 million and paying athletes
To us $25 million is a lot of money (it's close to a third of our campaign goal) but to the universities in the BCS conferences it's a drop in the bucket. Again, UVa is in the middle of a $3 billion campaign; Penn State is looking at $1 billion. UVa has to raise more than $25 million every three weeks to reach their campaign goal. College presidents working at that level are not going to bend over backwards for $25m, especially when a recruiting scandal could cost you a few hundred million in donations. (And in response to the inevitable followup question, athletic success does not drive donations. The big-time donors are cultivated for years, so why would one or two seasons' success affect that? Plus, the most successful fundraising schools--the Harvards and the Stanfords and the Cal Polys and the University of Chicagos--are hardly world-beaters on the field.)
It sounds like a lot because it is a lot, and it is being generated through the efforts of, what, 60-70 kids? Sure, the entire school revenue may be larger, but I am not sure what that has to do with the merits of the argument that the kids should be paid for the money they do bring in.
Yes, I can see the merits of paying college athletes. But I think it opens a bigger can of worms. Overnight you'd have a two-tier system of the schools who could afford to pay their athletes and those who couldn't. The schools that actually are making money off athletics would be gone, into their own proto-major league world. Goodbye March Madness, goodbye "Olympic" sports (even the BCS schools are starting to cut them...how are they going to be paid for if the athletic budget goes to student salaries?), hello college free agency, hello bidding wars over 16- and 17-year-old point guards and free safeties.
Having athletes play for free is bad, but the alternative is infinitely worse. Just about everything great about college athletics would be torn apart, and a whole lot of ugly would be added.