[quote="UncleLar, post:1, topic:1083"][url=http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/mensbasketball/2010-04-01-coaches-salaries-cover_N.htm?csp=Daily%20Briefing]Rising salaries of coaches force colleges to seek budget patch[/url]
One paragraph caught my eye.
“According to several studies, including one co-written by the now-White House budget director Peter Orszag— in his previous life as a Brookings Institution fellow — for every $1 a school pays to build its athletic program, it gets $1 back in new revenue. In other words, with rare exceptions, spending more on a football or men’s basketball program does not yield increases in alumni giving, net operating revenue, winning or academic quality.”[/quote]
Wouldn’t that mostly have to do with the fact that other than football and men’s basketball, all other sports are just money eaters? So even if football and men’s basketball are profitable, the money they make just goes to support the rest of the athletic teams?
No, it doesn’t.
But even if it did, how exactly would that have anything to do with “alumni giving”, “winning”, or “academic quality”?
Winning and academic quality weren’t even part of my comment. I was solely focusing on the $1 spent = $1 earned, which essentially means that overall no college athletic program turns a profit. I was strictly commenting on that area.
Who on earth would actually think that spending more money on athletics will increase a colleges academic standing? Quick, spend a lot on football so we can become the next Harvard. Spending money also doesn’t equal success. I don’t think anybody feels that way either – look at professional sports. We needed a study to tell us all this? I can see a direct correlation between winning programs and alumni donations but, again, spending does not equal winning, so spending does not equal alumni donations.
The study don’t say that $1 spent = $1 earned. They say a net $1 spent = a net $1 earned. There is a difference.
In all but a handful of cases, college athletic programs are spending already MORE money than they are earning. Schools are operating at a deficit. What the studies are saying is that colleges can’t spend their way out of that deficit because they will only earn a dollar back for every additional dollar spent.
As far as improving a school’s academic standing, I think the argument goes that spending more on coaches, facilities, etc. would result in a higher profile, and perhaps more winning, athletic program. That in turn translates into more students applying to the school. If more students apply, a school can be more selective in who they take. If they can be more selective, they can take better students and build up the school’s academic standing.