With all of the talk about the creation of a new subdivision of predominantly upper level schools, I hear a number of fans who are getting jazzed about wanting their school to ramp up the spending on athletics. The problems that begin to arise come about when you take into account the total operating budget of the lower tier schools. While the notion that upper tier schools spending $50 - $100 million/year on athletics sounds crazy, it ends up looking OK when you factor in the overall school operating budgets at these schools are around $2 billion/year and higher. In these cases, the percent spent on athletics ends up being around 1 to 3% of the entire budget tops. However, when the lower tier schools are spending $20 - $50 mil/year on athletics, but the their operating budgets are around $500 million to less that $1 billion/year, the percent of the overall budget allocated to athletics is north of 5% for many of these schools. That is crazy. Yes, I understand that ticket sales, booster donations and 3rd tier media rights are revenues not coming from the general fund; however, very few athletics departments are actually profitable so at some point almost every school is dipping into the general funds to bridge the shortfall.

It's unethical, IMHO, to commit to spending a lot of money on athletics when your school does not have a large operating budget. It begins to blur the lines of what the true mission of the school is. I can predict that I'll get a lot of criticism from the usual suspects and get accused of being a troll but the bottom line is this:

Not all schools are peers. There is an hierarchy of schools. That's the way life is, so the sooner it is acknowledged the better college athletics will become for all of us.

(07-26-2013 12:31 AM)miko33 Wrote:  With all of the talk about the creation of a new subdivision of predominantly upper level schools, I hear a number of fans who are getting jazzed about wanting their school to ramp up the spending on athletics. The problems that begin to arise come about when you take into account the total operating budget of the lower tier schools. While the notion that upper tier schools spending $50 - $100 million/year on athletics sounds crazy, it ends up looking OK when you factor in the overall school operating budgets at these schools are around $2 billion/year and higher. In these cases, the percent spent on athletics ends up being around 1 to 3% of the entire budget tops. However, when the lower tier schools are spending $20 - $50 mil/year on athletics, but the their operating budgets are around $500 million to less that $1 billion/year, the percent of the overall budget allocated to athletics is north of 5% for many of these schools. That is crazy. Yes, I understand that ticket sales, booster donations and 3rd tier media rights are revenues not coming from the general fund; however, very few athletics departments are actually profitable so at some point almost every school is dipping into the general funds to bridge the shortfall.

It's unethical, IMHO, to commit to spending a lot of money on athletics when your school does not have a large operating budget. It begins to blur the lines of what the true mission of the school is. I can predict that I'll get a lot of criticism from the usual suspects and get accused of being a troll but the bottom line is this:

Not all schools are peers. There is an hierarchy of schools. That's the way life is, so the sooner it is acknowledged the better college athletics will become for all of us.

A lot of high athletic budget schools have skyrocketing tuitions and highly subsidized athletic programs. Is that ethical.

Is it ethical to have an athletic program that spends every bit of revenue it gets its mitts on rather transferring funds to support the institution that for decades subsidized athletics when it is already spending above the median level of their conference?

If the athletic program operates in the black consistently the answer is no. If the athletic program operates in the red consistently the answer is yes.

This is a high quality troll attempt right here. This is the stuff I expect out of Miko. It's almost a serious topic of discussion, but if you read between the lines he's sending the message that everyone below the P5 line should just give up and not try to compete at the highest level. A+ effort here. This is one of your best trolls in a long time.

(07-26-2013 08:40 AM)JRsec Wrote:  If the athletic program operates in the black consistently the answer is no. If the athletic program operates in the red consistently the answer is yes.

I agree with your statement. However, since the number of schools operating in the black consistently is pretty small, it calls into question the decision making of some of these lower tier schools. When you couple that with the fact that these schools are spending at a significantly higher percentage of the overall operating budget, it's a travesty. If I was an alumnus of one of these schools, I'd be outraged at the gross mismanagement that is at my school.

You can't always trying to keep up with the Jones's...

(07-26-2013 09:07 AM)miko33 Wrote:  

(07-26-2013 08:40 AM)JRsec Wrote:  If the athletic program operates in the black consistently the answer is no. If the athletic program operates in the red consistently the answer is yes.

I agree with your statement. However, since the number of schools operating in the black consistently is pretty small, it calls into question the decision making of some of these lower tier schools. When you couple that with the fact that these schools are spending at a significantly higher percentage of the overall operating budget, it's a travesty. If I was an alumnus of one of these schools, I'd be outraged at the gross mismanagement that is at my school.

You can't always trying to keep up with the Jones's...

I think Pitt should be allowed to continue to spend too much on athletics, despite having little to nothing to show for it.

I love how you post looking for someone to agree with you sometimes.

But what exactly do you mean by lower tier schools? Do you mean Washington State lower tier or Boise State lower tier? It looks like your indirectly referring to the non power conferences.

Ask yourself this was it stupid for Utah, TCU, Louisville, Boise, and every other school who has had success to invest more money? Investing in athletics is always a gamble because it is not guaranteed to give you success. However, athletics give universities things that academics do not.

(07-26-2013 09:07 AM)miko33 Wrote:  

(07-26-2013 08:40 AM)JRsec Wrote:  If the athletic program operates in the black consistently the answer is no. If the athletic program operates in the red consistently the answer is yes.

I agree with your statement. However, since the number of schools operating in the black consistently is pretty small, it calls into question the decision making of some of these lower tier schools. When you couple that with the fact that these schools are spending at a significantly higher percentage of the overall operating budget, it's a travesty. If I was an alumnus of one of these schools, I'd be outraged at the gross mismanagement that is at my school.

You can't always trying to keep up with the Jones's...

Well I just need to contact my state goverment and inform them that they need to send the same amout of state funds per student to Troy and USA that they sent to Auburn and Alabama. That would solve the percentage difference between these four school. I also need to tell them that T-town needs to send the same amout to UAB per student in funding that they keep in T-town.

(07-26-2013 09:07 AM)miko33 Wrote:  

(07-26-2013 08:40 AM)JRsec Wrote:  If the athletic program operates in the black consistently the answer is no. If the athletic program operates in the red consistently the answer is yes.

I agree with your statement. However, since the number of schools operating in the black consistently is pretty small, it calls into question the decision making of some of these lower tier schools. When you couple that with the fact that these schools are spending at a significantly higher percentage of the overall operating budget, it's a travesty. If I was an alumnus of one of these schools, I'd be outraged at the gross mismanagement that is at my school.

You can't always trying to keep up with the Jones's...

Miko, I realize that you raised a serious moral question. Such questions are usually only appreciated by, and answered by, black and white maxims, or in this case black and red ones. I realized when I answered your question that very few programs consistently operate in the black. I also realized that due to the nature of state funding most of them spend whatever they are given and then some so they can ask for more on the next budget. If operating in the red meant forfeiture of the program this practice would be cleaned up. Once those programs truly operating in the black or red were established then the ethical thing for those in the red to do would be to shrink their expenditures within budget.

But to be quite fair our governments, local, state, and federal should have to do the same. The fact that they don't and we allow it means that tacitly we are an immoral society as that is in part how the wealthy continue to scam the poor. They buy government access, grow government to benefit themselves, and tax us to pay for it. Schools and football (or other athletics) are no different in many regards. Honesty with public funds begins with accurate accounting and accurate reporting otherwise the public isn't informed enough to demand ethical decisions be made.

So my answer, and I know you understand this completely, stands. If they consistently operate in the red then they are in violation of the public trust (unless totally private) and should be held accountable. If they consistently operate in the black they are an asset to the school and in compliance with the public trust and should be sustained and commended.

(07-26-2013 09:27 AM)ValleyBoy Wrote:  

(07-26-2013 09:07 AM)miko33 Wrote:  

(07-26-2013 08:40 AM)JRsec Wrote:  If the athletic program operates in the black consistently the answer is no. If the athletic program operates in the red consistently the answer is yes.

I agree with your statement. However, since the number of schools operating in the black consistently is pretty small, it calls into question the decision making of some of these lower tier schools. When you couple that with the fact that these schools are spending at a significantly higher percentage of the overall operating budget, it's a travesty. If I was an alumnus of one of these schools, I'd be outraged at the gross mismanagement that is at my school.

You can't always trying to keep up with the Jones's...

Well I just need to contact my state goverment and inform them that they need to send the same amout of state funds per student to Troy and USA that they sent to Auburn and Alabama. That would solve the percentage difference between these four school. I also need to tell them that T-town needs to send the same amout to UAB per student in funding that they keep in T-town.

It is a serious issue in our state. The funds stay in Tuscaloosa regardless of their enrollment (3rd largest in the state) because of the law school and more specifically because of the number of the law grads who are in the State House and State Senate. Auburn gets a strong second level funding because of the number of alums who vote and that's about the only reason. UAB may have the largest enrollment now, I'm not sure as I haven't checked it in a few years, but both UAB and Auburn have had larger enrollments than UA for quite some time. At one point in the 80's South Alabama wasn't far behind them. Troy's enrollment is hard to categorize because they are so diversified overseas (kudos to them for the foresight). It will be interesting to see how appropriations are given in the future.

It's far more ethical than it is for a higher tier school to pay players..

(07-26-2013 09:27 AM)ValleyBoy Wrote:  

(07-26-2013 09:07 AM)miko33 Wrote:  

(07-26-2013 08:40 AM)JRsec Wrote:  If the athletic program operates in the black consistently the answer is no. If the athletic program operates in the red consistently the answer is yes.

I agree with your statement. However, since the number of schools operating in the black consistently is pretty small, it calls into question the decision making of some of these lower tier schools. When you couple that with the fact that these schools are spending at a significantly higher percentage of the overall operating budget, it's a travesty. If I was an alumnus of one of these schools, I'd be outraged at the gross mismanagement that is at my school.

You can't always trying to keep up with the Jones's...

Well I just need to contact my state goverment and inform them that they need to send the same amout of state funds per student to Troy and USA that they sent to Auburn and Alabama. That would solve the percentage difference between these four school. I also need to tell them that T-town needs to send the same amout to UAB per student in funding that they keep in T-town.

Something no one wants do admit.

The real issue with athletics in my opinion are the state governments that allow schools to monopolize athletics. Just look at the university of Alabama school system. You have a school in the heart of the south UAB, with no on campus stadium and to be honest someone usually has to tell you when your driving through UAB. Just the other day I was running at the Alabama Huntsville campus and it simply amazes me how a huge and probably most high tech campus in arguably the crown jewel city of the State has no football team. I'm not even completely sure UAH is even a D1 program because I have never seen them play basketball on TV.

Huntsville is one of the largest cities in Alabama and it's right between Nashville and Birmingham (one and a half hour to each). Someone explain why just about every university in Alabama not affiliated with the University of Alabama school system has a thriving football program. By thriving I don't mean winning BCS bowls I just mean you can go to the games and have a good time. Alabama A&M, Jacksonville State, University of North Alabama, Alabama State, Auburn, Troy, South Alabama. Just about every single one of these teams have won their conference in the last five years.

Here's what's missed 99% of the time.

Athletics budgets are largely advertizing budgets.

Anyone who has started looking for colleges in the last 15 years at least can tell you once you get on college mailing lists, you'll get hundreds of letters and a lot more from colleges. I saved all mine till the end of my senior year of high school. It filled more than an entire full size trash bag. You don't just get letters though, you get CDs, you get magic 8 balls with facts about the school, etc. You also have schools sending representatives all over the country for college fairs.

That is not a small budget for recruitment. Athletics is a lot more bang for their buck than most of that. Think of out of state schools. Which ones come to your mind first and would also be the ones you'd first look at if you were looking out of state?

Bet most of them are ones that play division 1 football/basketball. I'm not even talking just the power schools at all. If you were thinking of going to school in California, which would you guys look up first, San Fransisco State or San Diego State? What about in Ohio, Miami (OH) or Write State? In both cases, the enrollment is similar. Heck, I'm an Ohioan and I would have looked at Miami (OH) would have crossed my mind long before Wright State despite me knowing nothing about their campuses.

None of this means that huge losses are fine, but some loss is acceptable given its probably more valuable to you than a lot of other recruitment services.

(07-26-2013 09:46 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  It's far more ethical than it is for a higher tier school to pay players..

We differ in what we call pay. A stipidened is already used for people on academic scholarships. I think its very unethical for the schools to run huge athletic departments and not let the players take anything (even from willing boosters over the table), and I don't think what the schools want to offer now comes close to meeting that threshold.

(07-26-2013 09:42 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-26-2013 09:27 AM)ValleyBoy Wrote:  

(07-26-2013 09:07 AM)miko33 Wrote:  

(07-26-2013 08:40 AM)JRsec Wrote:  If the athletic program operates in the black consistently the answer is no. If the athletic program operates in the red consistently the answer is yes.

I agree with your statement. However, since the number of schools operating in the black consistently is pretty small, it calls into question the decision making of some of these lower tier schools. When you couple that with the fact that these schools are spending at a significantly higher percentage of the overall operating budget, it's a travesty. If I was an alumnus of one of these schools, I'd be outraged at the gross mismanagement that is at my school.

You can't always trying to keep up with the Jones's...

Well I just need to contact my state goverment and inform them that they need to send the same amout of state funds per student to Troy and USA that they sent to Auburn and Alabama. That would solve the percentage difference between these four school. I also need to tell them that T-town needs to send the same amout to UAB per student in funding that they keep in T-town.

It is a serious issue in our state. The funds stay in Tuscaloosa regardless of their enrollment (3rd largest in the state) because of the law school and more specifically because of the number of the law grads who are in the State House and State Senate. Auburn gets a strong second level funding because of the number of alums who vote and that's about the only reason. UAB may have the largest enrollment now, I'm not sure as I haven't checked it in a few years, but both UAB and Auburn have had larger enrollments than UA for quite some time. At one point in the 80's South Alabama wasn't far behind them. Troy's enrollment is hard to categorize because they are so diversified overseas (kudos to them for the foresight). It will be interesting to see how appropriations are given in the future.

Being from the state of Alabama I do not see this change anytime in the near future. Pecking order will not change from Alabama (Tuscaloosa), Auburn, then everyone else receiving what crumbs are left over.

Last I saw from USA Today there were like less than 10 schools that had gone 5 years running fully in the black.

The reality is there aren't very many schools in all of FBS that couldn't operate in the black if that were how the game were played.

Sure some head coaches might be making $85k and assistants $45k or so. The building frenzy would be over all across FBS. The ratio of tutors and counselors to student-athletes would fall. There would be more utilization of busses vs aircraft but it could be done.

someone else said it perfectly. the purpose of college athletics is to promote the schools name brand not to win games. how the heck would have know who boise state was in the 90s? i didnt even know of florida gulf coast before last year. ask anyone from the west coast to name as many new york schools as possible and syracuse tops the list over the suny schools

Exactly. There is a reason schools that want a somewhat national student body (or just more bodies in general) are putting money in certain sports and its got nothing to do with winning a national championship. If the cost of the sports isn't worth what they are getting in extra academic brand name, then of course they should drop it or move down, but given the push to move up to I-A I don't think most programs view it that way.

(07-26-2013 12:22 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  Exactly. There is a reason schools that want a somewhat national student body (or just more bodies in general) are putting money in certain sports and its got nothing to do with winning a national championship. If the cost of the sports isn't worth what they are getting in extra academic brand name, then of course they should drop it or move down, but given the push to move up to I-A I don't think most programs view it that way.

There is also a limit as to how effective this can be. Granted a school like Boise generated some buzz and press for themselves; however, the advertising that they engaged in thru athletics is not resulting in major changes in the school itself. It still has an awful lot of work to do in order to attract the better quality students. So even for Boise, it's still a regional school, and that will not change anytime soon.

(07-26-2013 02:06 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(07-26-2013 12:22 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  Exactly. There is a reason schools that want a somewhat national student body (or just more bodies in general) are putting money in certain sports and its got nothing to do with winning a national championship. If the cost of the sports isn't worth what they are getting in extra academic brand name, then of course they should drop it or move down, but given the push to move up to I-A I don't think most programs view it that way.

There is also a limit as to how effective this can be. Granted a school like Boise generated some buzz and press for themselves; however, the advertising that they engaged in thru athletics is not resulting in major changes in the school itself. It still has an awful lot of work to do in order to attract the better quality students. So even for Boise, it's still a regional school, and that will not change anytime soon.

But at least a Grad of Boise State when he goes for a job interview outside of potato land does not have to inform his interviewer where Boise is located at.