Colleges in Dire Financial Straits

[mleok]

The problem is sports cost money and hardly any programs bring in money. The D-II and D-III schools at least aren't spending ungodly amounts on football and men's basketball.

They bring in students. And students bring in money. And students who enjoy sports might stick around long enough to graduate, thus helping success stats.

My public R1 just moved to D-I, and the argument was that it would improve school spirit and alumni giving. We'll see if that happens in practice, although I rather doubt it. We already have more students (both in-state and international) than we know what to do with, so we don't need to improve enrollment numbers. At least we don't have a football team, and the coaches don't seem to be paid an ungodly amount.

[dr_codex]

This probably belongs on its own thread, but the business model for sports is changing rapidly. Professional sports in the US is acknowledging what everybody knew, and what was the norm almost everywhere else: the dominant role of gambling in almost every aspect of finance, administration, and coverage.  Sovereign states are using teams for money laundering investment and PR. And the brave new world of non-fungible tokens seems to be upon us: https://insidersport.com/2021/06/14/how-nfts-are-monetising-sports-teams-and-athletes-fanbases/. Time to buy a piece of your school's mascot?

[Mobius]

The problem is sports cost money and hardly any programs bring in money. The D-II and D-III schools at least aren't spending ungodly amounts on football and men's basketball.

They bring in students. And students bring in money. And students who enjoy sports might stick around long enough to graduate, thus helping success stats.

My public R1 just moved to D-I, and the argument was that it would improve school spirit and alumni giving. We'll see if that happens in practice, although I rather doubt it. We already have more students (both in-state and international) than we know what to do with, so we don't need to improve enrollment numbers. At least we don't have a football team, and the coaches don't seem to be paid an ungodly amount.

Attendance at events once you get past the Power 5, plus Big East basketball, is generally abysmal. Pulled up attendance from 2018. New Hampshire averaged less than 500. Northern Arizona less than 1,000. NAU enrollment is around 20k on campus.

Check it out: http://fs.ncaa.org/Docs/stats/m_basketball_RB/2019/Attendance.pdf

[TreadingLife]

The problem is sports cost money and hardly any programs bring in money. The D-II and D-III schools at least aren't spending ungodly amounts on football and men's basketball.

They bring in students. And students bring in money. And students who enjoy sports might stick around long enough to graduate, thus helping success stats.

Except this is really not what happens at a place like Larry's school or mine.

Probably true for you and Larry, but not true for others. My Athletic Director at a D3 Small LAC recently commented that he wanted to create two more sports teams (not football or basketball). He went on to say that at $50-60k-ish for a coach, if this coach recruits and retains 3 students, they pay for their position. If they can recruit and retain a team of 12-20 (depending on the sport) then this clearly works for schools desperate for students, which we are. And at least at my school, athletes are retained and graduate at higher rates than the general student population. They tend to be more engaged alums as well.

[jimbogumbo]

The problem is sports cost money and hardly any programs bring in money. The D-II and D-III schools at least aren't spending ungodly amounts on football and men's basketball.

They bring in students. And students bring in money. And students who enjoy sports might stick around long enough to graduate, thus helping success stats.

Except this is really not what happens at a place like Larry's school or mine.

Probably true for you and Larry, but not true for others. My Athletic Director at a D3 Small LAC recently commented that he wanted to create two more sports teams (not football or basketball). He went on to say that at $50-60k-ish for a coach, if this coach recruits and retains 3 students, they pay for their position. If they can recruit and retain a team of 12-20 (depending on the sport) then this clearly works for schools desperate for students, which we are. And at least at my school, athletes are retained and graduate at higher rates than the general student population. They tend to be more engaged alums as well.

Polly would routinely echo this for many D-3s. It is not the reality for pretty much any D1 or D2 programs, especially those with football. Below is a link pertaining to the University of Cincinnati, which has had an extremely successful basketball program, and over the period described a really good football program. Currently 12-0, and in the top 4, slated for the College Football Playoff if the team wins one more game. Losses over the last 12 years (data doesn't include last year) of $250,000,000. Last year was another $32.9 million. It is a public, and each student "contributes" $1,150 per year to athletics.

Disclaimer: I have been a fan since I was a kid back in 1960.

https://www.newsrecord.org/news/red-ink-rising-uc-s-12-year-athletic-deficit-rises-to-a-quarter-of-a/article_3d841df6-7e92-11ea-9261-2f63f21e7ef7.html

[Mobius]

D-III is a different universe. D-III schools also base revenue on high projections. Plenty of cases where they can't get high-quality students. Think non-selective LACs where athletes will bounce around due to poor grades.

Some D-III are also trying to catch sports booms such as lacrosse that is now national, so schools are looking to capture all those new high school players.

[Wahoo Redux]

The problem is sports cost money and hardly any programs bring in money. The D-II and D-III schools at least aren't spending ungodly amounts on football and men's basketball.

They bring in students. And students bring in money. And students who enjoy sports might stick around long enough to graduate, thus helping success stats.

Except this is really not what happens at a place like Larry's school or mine.

Probably true for you and Larry, but not true for others. My Athletic Director at a D3 Small LAC recently commented that he wanted to create two more sports teams (not football or basketball). He went on to say that at $50-60k-ish for a coach, if this coach recruits and retains 3 students, they pay for their position. If they can recruit and retain a team of 12-20 (depending on the sport) then this clearly works for schools desperate for students, which we are. And at least at my school, athletes are retained and graduate at higher rates than the general student population. They tend to be more engaged alums as well.

That is our argument as well.  I bought it until I actually saw the numbers.  There are a great many more expenses than just a coach's salary for one thing. 

Do your students subsidize your athletics through fees?

[TreadingLife]

The problem is sports cost money and hardly any programs bring in money. The D-II and D-III schools at least aren't spending ungodly amounts on football and men's basketball.

They bring in students. And students bring in money. And students who enjoy sports might stick around long enough to graduate, thus helping success stats.

Except this is really not what happens at a place like Larry's school or mine.

Probably true for you and Larry, but not true for others. My Athletic Director at a D3 Small LAC recently commented that he wanted to create two more sports teams (not football or basketball). He went on to say that at $50-60k-ish for a coach, if this coach recruits and retains 3 students, they pay for their position. If they can recruit and retain a team of 12-20 (depending on the sport) then this clearly works for schools desperate for students, which we are. And at least at my school, athletes are retained and graduate at higher rates than the general student population. They tend to be more engaged alums as well.

That is our argument as well.  I bought it until I actually saw the numbers.  There are a great many more expenses than just a coach's salary for one thing. 

Do your students subsidize your athletics through fees?

The only fee we have is the student activity fee of $200 which is for running student government and student clubs on campus.  So explicitly, the students are not funding athletics via fees; however, indirectly the cost of the college experience, including athletics, is folded into tuition. Regardless, $60K not spent on a coach could be $60K to spend on anything else (but hopefully not consultants, because we spend plenty of money on them and get next to nothing in return.)

The only other real costs I can think of related to expanding the number of athletic teams would be the increased competition for practice time on limited fields and spaces on campus. Transportation costs would also increase for the college. And the potential need to hire more athletic trainers, although I bet you could keep that expense the same and just ask the athletes to wait longer for treatments. "Learn to tape your own ankle, kid."

[Mobius]

Reminds me of an interview I had with a struggling SLAC that was an NAIA school instead of NCAA. The school. More than half of the student body were athletes. Graduation rate was less than 50%. Pay for assistant profs was under $40k. Athletics is keep the lights on, but that's it.

[Wahoo Redux]

The problem is sports cost money and hardly any programs bring in money. The D-II and D-III schools at least aren't spending ungodly amounts on football and men's basketball.

They bring in students. And students bring in money. And students who enjoy sports might stick around long enough to graduate, thus helping success stats.

Except this is really not what happens at a place like Larry's school or mine.

Probably true for you and Larry, but not true for others. My Athletic Director at a D3 Small LAC recently commented that he wanted to create two more sports teams (not football or basketball). He went on to say that at $50-60k-ish for a coach, if this coach recruits and retains 3 students, they pay for their position. If they can recruit and retain a team of 12-20 (depending on the sport) then this clearly works for schools desperate for students, which we are. And at least at my school, athletes are retained and graduate at higher rates than the general student population. They tend to be more engaged alums as well.

That is our argument as well.  I bought it until I actually saw the numbers.  There are a great many more expenses than just a coach's salary for one thing. 

Do your students subsidize your athletics through fees?

The only fee we have is the student activity fee of $200 which is for running student government and student clubs on campus.  So explicitly, the students are not funding athletics via fees; however, indirectly the cost of the college experience, including athletics, is folded into tuition. Regardless, $60K not spent on a coach could be $60K to spend on anything else (but hopefully not consultants, because we spend plenty of money on them and get next to nothing in return.)

The only other real costs I can think of related to expanding the number of athletic teams would be the increased competition for practice time on limited fields and spaces on campus. Transportation costs would also increase for the college. And the potential need to hire more athletic trainers, although I bet you could keep that expense the same and just ask the athletes to wait longer for treatments. "Learn to tape your own ankle, kid."

Well, there are gyms, training equipment, athletic equipment (football, hockey, and lacrosse in particular), towels and uniforms, sodding the fields (that came up this year for us----you would not believe how much that costs), stadium maintenance, locker rooms, office overhead, promotional materials, insurance, and usually more than one coaching salary per team (although these are often volunteer or PT).  So I do not know about additional costs of adding teams, but none of that stuff is free.

[dismalist]

Some of the posts above are guilty of the Fallacy of Composition. Even if maintaining or expanding sports were to work for one or the other college, that doesn't mean it will work for all. In fact, it can't.

The U President pursuing a sports strategy not only has to think s/he's smart, but also has to get lucky.

[Wahoo Redux]

We offer tutoring to athletes and they have student advocates too.  I forgot about those.  Personally I like having athletes in my classes----as others have noted, they are usually cool and self-motivated people.  And I tend to think they are nice people.  My best student this year is on the women's basketball team.

As I wondered above, maybe athletics are simply part of the academic organism like any other organ.

[dismalist]

We offer tutoring to athletes and they have student advocates too.  I forgot about those.  Personally I like having athletes in my classes----as others have noted, they are usually cool and self-motivated people.  And I tend to think they are nice people.  My best student this year is on the women's basketball team.

As I wondered above, maybe athletics are simply part of the academic organism like any other organ.

Except in the rest of the world. American exceptionalism!

[marshwiggle]

We offer tutoring to athletes and they have student advocates too.  I forgot about those.  Personally I like having athletes in my classes----as others have noted, they are usually cool and self-motivated people.  And I tend to think they are nice people.  My best student this year is on the women's basketball team.

As I wondered above, maybe athletics are simply part of the academic organism like any other organ.

Except in the rest of the world. American exceptionalism!

In Canada, I think at my campus a coffee shop closing would get more attention than a team getting shut down. In a year when a team wins a provincial or national title, the team probably gets about a weekend's worth of recognition out of it. (i.e. the weekend on which the game is played.)

[dismalist]

Some of the posts above are guilty of the Fallacy of Composition. Even if maintaining or expanding sports were to work for one or the other college, that doesn't mean it will work for all. In fact, it can't.

The U President pursuing a sports strategy not only has to think s/he's smart, but also has to get lucky.

Just think: Let's expand our English Department and/or our Chemistry Department. We all know that won't work. Instead, expanding Sports some believe will work. And it's still College? But it can't work for all.