Study highlights NCAA spending gaps between students and athletes, SEC atop list

[bluedog]

Annual spending on sports by public universities in six big-time conferences like the SEC and Big 12 has passed $100,000 per athlete -- about six to 12 times the amount those universities are spending per student on academics, according to a study released Wednesday to greet college presidents arriving at the NCAA's annual meeting in Texas.The study finds the largest gap by far in the Southeastern Conference, which combines relatively low academic spending and explosive coaching salaries. Median athletic spending there totaled nearly $164,000 per athlete in 2010. That is more than 12 times the $13,390 that SEC schools spent per student for academic expenses, including instructional costs and student services.

http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2013/01/study_highlights_ncaa_spending.html

[walliver]

The article is dated January 2013.

I didn't catch that until I reached the part about the SEC winning last last 7 BCS championships.

The main point that jumped out to me was: If these schools are only spending $13,000-$14,000 per each student for academics, why is tuition so high for many of them?

[Lehigh Football Nation]

One thing that is a bit misleading is that football coaches' salaries are included in this. Ex. Saban makes $4 mil a year, so that's $47,000 per football athlete, or conservatively ~$8,000 per Alabama athlete. So the "spending" doesn't really go to the student-athlete, it's overall spending divided by the number of student-athletes.

[walliver]

One thing that is a bit misleading is that football coaches' salaries are included in this. Ex. Saban makes $4 mil a year, so that's $47,000 per football athlete, or conservatively ~$8,000 per Alabama athlete. So the "spending" doesn't really go to the student-athlete, it's overall spending divided by the number of student-athletes.

You also have to figure in the fact that the NCAA's new recruiting policies have essentially created an unlimited number of new positions within athletic departments.

[RichH2]

Depressing but not surprising. The business of SEC schools is football , students only there to fill stadiums .

[PAllen]

The article is dated January 2013.

I didn't catch that until I reached the part about the SEC winning last last 7 BCS championships.

The main point that jumped out to me was: If these schools are only spending $13,000-$14,000 per each student for academics, why is tuition so high for many of them?

This, It'd be nice to see a comparison of academic spending per student vs tuition per student and see where the rest goes. We can all probably make a pretty good guess as to where it all goes, but that should be the real discussion.

[PAllen]

One thing that is a bit misleading is that football coaches' salaries are included in this. Ex. Saban makes $4 mil a year, so that's $47,000 per football athlete, or conservatively ~$8,000 per Alabama athlete. So the "spending" doesn't really go to the student-athlete, it's overall spending divided by the number of student-athletes.

Not misleading at all. If professor's and academic staff salaries are included on the academic side, then coaches and athletic staff should be included on the athletic side.

[MplsBison]

The article is dated January 2013.

I didn't catch that until I reached the part about the SEC winning last last 7 BCS championships.

The main point that jumped out to me was: If these schools are only spending $13,000-$14,000 per each student for academics, why is tuition so high for many of them?

Internet access and IT spending are huge. That's just one off the top of my head.

[PAllen]

Internet access and IT spending are huge. That's just one off the top of my head.

General facilities (mowing the lawn, etc) expenditures are probably significant as well. Again, I'd love to see a break out to see just how much of a discrepancy there is.

[DFW HOYA]

It's also misleading when some schools sponsor the NCAA minimum number of sports versus schools that offer a more broad based program for student-athletes. Harvard, for example, has 43 sports, 29 more than West Virginia.

[PAllen]

It's also misleading when some schools sponsor the NCAA minimum number of sports versus schools that offer a more broad based program for student-athletes. Harvard, for example, has 43 sports, 29 more than West Virginia.

But wouldn't Harvard then have more athletes, thus increasing the denominator in proportion to the numerator of athletic expenditures/athlete?

[MplsBison]

Without doing any digging, I'm going to assume that the study used two elementary calculations to determine the two amounts for comparison.

Spending per student on "academics" = total operating budget / total number of students
Spending per athlete on "athletics" = total athletic department budget / total number of athletes

It should surprise no one that the SEC schools have the "worst" ratio. They spend the most on football (particularly head coach salaries) and they have some of the smallest research expenditures of major public flagship universities.

In other words, they ain't read too good - but they can play ball. End

[RichH2]

:) Accurate capsule of SEC.

[PAllen]

Without doing any digging, I'm going to assume that the study used two elementary calculations to determine the two amounts for comparison.

Spending per student on "academics" = total operating budget / total number of students
Spending per athlete on "athletics" = total athletic department budget / total number of athletes

It should surprise no one that the SEC schools have the "worst" ratio. They spend the most on football (particularly head coach salaries) and they have some of the smallest research expenditures of major public flagship universities.

In other words, they ain't read too good - but they can play ball. End

If those are the ratios, it's pretty pathetic.

BTW, major xthumbsupx for the bolded section

[Lehigh Football Nation]

This excellent piece shows the dirty secret regarding the "spending gap": fewer student-athletes = more $ per student-athletes.

http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2014/06/09/Colleges/College-spending.aspx

Worth it for the stuff on Temple alone (hey, GoLehighTUOwl!), but here's what I was talking about:


When Rutgers announced it was eliminating teams, the athletic department had 714 student athletes and $44.8 million in expenses, totals that translated to $62,773 in spending per student athlete. To put that in perspective, Texas, with one of the largest budgets in college athletics, had $100 million in expenses and just 525 student athletes that same year — meaning more than $190,000 being spent per student athlete. By 2012 [after cutting five sports], Rutgers’ spending per student athlete had increased 67 percent, to $104,638, just below the $107,677 average for public universities with FBS football programs thanks to approximately 100 fewer student athletes but nearly $20 million more in its budget.

The picture, brilliantly shown in this article, is twofold: 1) the trend is to fully-fund women's sports that were partially funded before (though unsaid in the article, the main driver of this is Title IX legislation), and 2) football (or some) revenue is required just to get these schools to this state at all. And that's the P5 we're talking about, too, not even the High Point's or Presbyterian's.

[walliver]

The whole "ratio" argument is useless. Most of the SEC schools are well-respected academically. In many cases, it is difficult for non-athletes to gain admission. Academic spending is not an issue. The programs with the biggest budgets by definition spend more. When you spend millions on coaches, practice facilities, recruiting, travel, marketing, et al. and then take that number and divide it by the number of athletes (which is about the same for all schools) then you are going to get a higher ratio.

In addition, the major conferences' footprints make sense for TV revenue sports like football and basketball, but make little sense for non-revenue sports. Flying the volleyball, softball, tennis, wrestling, track, and soccer teams around the country is an expensive money-losing proposition.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

The whole "ratio" argument is useless. Most of the SEC schools are well-respected academically. In many cases, it is difficult for non-athletes to gain admission. Academic spending is not an issue. The programs with the biggest budgets by definition spend more. When you spend millions on coaches, practice facilities, recruiting, travel, marketing, et al. and then take that number and divide it by the number of athletes (which is about the same for all schools) then you are going to get a higher ratio.

In addition, the major conferences' footprints make sense for TV revenue sports like football and basketball, but make little sense for non-revenue sports. Flying the volleyball, softball, tennis, wrestling, track, and soccer teams around the country is an expensive money-losing proposition.

+100000

The problem is people take that inaccurate number, and then make decisions based on it to cut sports.

The question is: which is better, Rutgers having 700 athletes with a mixture of fully- and partially-funded athletes, or Rutgers having 500 almost all fully-funded athletes? You're giving less students an opportunity at an education...

[Nova09]

Musical theatre is expensive. It costs a lot for the rights to the shows; the Ph Ds who direct, stage manage, conduct, teach in the theatre department, teach in the music department; the lighting; the sound system; the facility; the insurance and on and on. And yet I have never seen a study about expenditure per student actor compared to "regular" student body.

[MplsBison]

The whole "ratio" argument is useless. Most of the SEC schools are well-respected academically. In many cases, it is difficult for non-athletes to gain admission. Academic spending is not an issue. The programs with the biggest budgets by definition spend more. When you spend millions on coaches, practice facilities, recruiting, travel, marketing, et al. and then take that number and divide it by the number of athletes (which is about the same for all schools) then you are going to get a higher ratio.

In addition, the major conferences' footprints make sense for TV revenue sports like football and basketball, but make little sense for non-revenue sports. Flying the volleyball, softball, tennis, wrestling, track, and soccer teams around the country is an expensive money-losing proposition.

I respect Texas A&M, Missouri, Vanderbilt and Florida, academically.

The rest are places where you go to party for four years, get a bachelor's degree in something and use that as a voucher to find some job within that state, within that alumni network.

[citdog]

I respect Texas A&M, Missouri, Vanderbilt and Florida, academically.

The rest are places where you go to party for four years, get a bachelor's degree in something and use that as a voucher to find some job within that state, within that alumni network.

YET another from off who has no clue about how things work in the South.

[MplsBison]

YET another from off who has no clue about how things work in the South.

I was only talking about SEC schools other than the four I named. They're not respectable academic institutions compared to their B1G and PAC counterparts.

There are of course other, great academic institutions in the south.