Comments on Salary Pecking Order

• Gee, all library directors have to do is sell 1000s of tickets
• Posted by Bart J. on March 13, 2006 at 5:05am EST

• About comparing sport coaches to library directors -- isn't that kind of 70's? Like "Peace With Honor" or "The Greening of America?"

  Further -- consider those colleges whose coaches consistantly lost -- they lost large amounts of money. If your sports teams are losers -- the program collapes and the college suffers loss of brand ID.

  Finally, the firing rate for Division I major sport coaches is about 15% a year. If library directors were paid the same -- would they have the same rate of involuntary dismissals?

• Posted by John Bagley on March 13, 2006 at 1:15pm EST

• Only a dozen or so universities in the entire nation make money on their sports teams, even when including indirect funding sources like alumni donations. Universities are paying their coaches so much in the hope of winning the lottery of becoming one of those handful of schools that make money from sports. The other thousands of American universities would be much better off if they dropped intercollegiate athletics. It's a huge money sink, only a very small percentage of their enrolled students participate, and few athletes obtain an education in the process.

• Don't make money?
• Posted by Bart J. on March 13, 2006 at 1:51pm EST

• "Only a dozen or so universities in the entire nation make money .."

  Frankly, I could care less about football, et al. With 150,000 of America's best citizens in Iraq, sports seem a bit silly.

  However, in the pursuit of truth, I'd really like to see the data that the writer is citing. This is, as opposed to J. Douglas Toma at Ga. St. --

  http://www.uga.edu/ihe/toma.html

• Posted by bob on March 13, 2006 at 1:51pm EST

• John Bagley is absolutely correct -- available evidence shows that almost all colleges and universities lose mony on sports teams. More importantly, money spent on intercollegiate sports diminishes the amount that could be spent on education. "College football is to higher education as bullfighting is to agriculture".

• funny comment........
• Posted by laughing guy on March 13, 2006 at 4:20pm EST

• "More importantly, money spent on intercollegiate sports diminishes the amount that could be spent on education."

  I could say the same of Scantron sheets and many other things in the higher ed arena. Unlike Scantron sheets, however, enrollment IS partially tied to the sports teams.

• Posted by Thane Doss on March 13, 2006 at 7:15pm EST

• Bart J.--

  Your link on Toma provides no data to disprove the widely verified assertion that few schools make money on sports.
  you'll have to dig out your copy of _Football U._ and provide some quotations and Toma's sources of supporting evidence.

  NCAA president Myles Brand is quoted as saying that "only about a dozen athletics departments earn a profit" in a December 19, 2005 _NCAA News_ article by Greg Johnson that you can find easily with Google. One would assume that the president of the NCAA would have some knowledge of this issue. Other _NCAA News_ articles also confirm that most programs lose money.

• Here are the facts and details
• Posted by Bart J. on March 14, 2006 at 6:00am EST

• "Your link on Toma provides no data .."

  How odd. Several academic publications recently named Toma one of the top 10 young USA academics for his work on how success in
  athletics reflects on college brand ID. You apparently don't read very widely. Pity.

  ".. NCAA president Myles Brand is quoted as saying .."

  You couldn't find the originating URL? Pity.

  http://www2.ncaa.org/portal/media_and_events/association_news/ncaa_news_online/2005/12_19_05/association_wide/4226n11.html

  Further -- you failed to provide the context of the meaning of profit by the speakers.

  Do you mean w/Title IX or w/o-Title IX? If w/o-Title IX -- what you are, a sexist MCP? You don't want women to play college sports?

  Further -- gross profit or net profit?

• Posted by Thane Doss on March 14, 2006 at 8:45am EST

• Sorry, Bart--

  I didn't know you were playing a game yourself, and assumed that the link you provided was supposed to lead to some sort of support for your implicit assertion that sports make money for colleges, as opposed to losing it. My mistake for thinking you understood the concept of burden of proof. Unfortunately, you've still provided no data to support your own assertions, so we will score them as pointless.

  Yes, Mr. Toma is indeed described as an associate professor of higher education with a UGA email address at the web link you've provided, and it lists some of his work, but there's not a word about profit or loss by college sports programs at that site. Were I to assert that David Baltimore is president of Caltech and to provide a link that shows this, would you then consider the case that college athletics lose money to be proven beyond a doubt? It would be as direct and to the point as your own "argument," after all. What the heck is it that you wish to say Toma says, and specifically where does he say it? Until you can come to recongnize that stating your points and supporting them are essential parts of academic argument, you should be repeatedly failing freshman composition.

  I do see that you were able to use Google to find the article I referenced, and presumably in the process, you saw a large number of others listed that also demonstrate that sports are a money loser for nearly all athletic departments involved. You don't seem to have referenced them, though.

  Sorry if it disappoints you that I refuse to follow your red herring list of questions, but in the face of documentation opposing your stance, you have provided no evidence whatsoever at this point. If you simply believe you need no substantiation, it's pointless to argue with you.

• Gross profit? Operating profit? Net profit?
• Posted by Bart J. on March 14, 2006 at 9:41am EST

• " .. you saw a large number of others listed that also demonstrate that sports are a money loser .."

  Sir, you, like so many of your ilk, are 100% clueless about the concept of profit. Do you mean on gross sales, in operational mode, or net-net? Also, is this with women's sports, or without women's sports?

  Your ilk complain endlessly about "corporatizing" of academia. Well, if that's the case -- if college sports were truly unprofitable -- how does that logically follow "corporatizing?" Here's a clue: corporatizing terminates the unprofitable -- viz., ENRON, WorldCom.

  Your statements are standard-issue complaints by the anti-sports crowd, without financial validity. If you knew anything about this topic, you'd name names, show calculations, and cite experts. But you haven't.

• Collegiate sports -- lose money?
• Posted by Martin on March 14, 2006 at 5:40pm EST

• A quick check for the "facts" about collegiate sports revenues led me to the following. Certainly more time would yield better results, but these at least provide some relatively reliable comments from people who should know.

  “Most intercollegiate athletics programs lose money. Outgoing NCAA president Cedric Dempsey recently reported that the shortfall between expenses and income across 970 NCAA schools now exceeds $1 billion annually. This creates a demand for longer seasons and more bowl games, and puts incredible pressure on coaches and players to win at all costs. Meanwhile, the escalating cost of coaches’ salaries in the top sports and the construction of expensive new facilities often require subsidizing athletics programs from universities’ academic budgets.”
  — John Hennessy, President of Stanford University
  http://www.stanfordalumni.org/news/magazine/2003/janfeb/upfront/presidents.html

  “Faced with prospects of an athletics program deficit that could reach $47 million by 2010, a University of Virginia task force recommends creating formal ‘tiers’ for the University's 24 varsity sports to bolster the University's strongest programs and reduce support for some lower-profile sports.”
  “According to an NCAA report, only 46 percent of Division I-A schools nationwide reported budgetary surpluses in 1999, and 54 percent reported a deficit. The ranks of those in the red included the University of North Carolina and the University of Michigan, among the most successful athletics programs in the country.”
  U. Virginia Athletics Department report, April 2001
  http://virginiasports.collegesports.com/genrel/040601aaa.html

  “The study also reveals that expenses are increasing at a greater pace than revenues for most leagues. In 2002, only four conferences (Big 12, Big Ten, SEC, Mountain West) reported average revenues greater than expenses, and only three (Big 12, Big Ten, SEC) reported average net profits of more than $1 million. Only the SEC schools have reported profits in each of the 10 years of the study. SEC revenues over expenses have ranged from a low of about $1 million in 1998 to almost $6 million in 2002.
  “On the flip side, five leagues (Big East, Conference USA, MAC, WAC, Sun Belt) have reported a net deficit in all 10 years of the study and the Mountain West has reported expenses over revenues in nine of the 10 years.”
  (NCAA News, April 2004)
  http://www.ncaa.org/wps/portal/!ut/p/kcxml/04_Sj9SPykssy0xPLMnMz0vM0Y_QjzKLN4j3NQDJgFjGpvqRqCKO6AI-YXARX4_83FR9b_0A_YLc0NCIckdFAEuT364!/delta/base64xml/L3dJdyEvUUd3QndNQSEvNElVRS82XzBfTFU!?CONTENT_URL=http://www.ncaa.org/news/2004/20040412/active/4108n02.html

• More facts
• Posted by Bart J. on March 14, 2006 at 8:00pm EST

• Thanks for your note. Here are the facts:

  * So -- minor sports are being dropped. Too bad -- but they are money-losers. What's next -- the English department? Anthropology? Philosphy? If colleges started dumping unprofitable areas -- the use of adjuncts would quintuple.

  * Are you criticizing the financial subsidy that women's sports have been getting from the major men's sports, viz. Title IX?

  Did you calculate what profit would be generated, if that women's sports subsidy were to be removed, from the equation?

  Are you advocating that women's sports subsidy be terminated, to increase profit?

  * Profit, profit, profit? Hold it -- I thought the "perfect" college was NON-profit! Now -- it's profit?

  Heck, that would be easy -- just focus on football and basketball, and maybe hockey and baseball.

  Now, you're profitable. Are you happy now?

  * A bunch of college fund-raisers tell me that their college is losing money. Just like GWB and Hiliary say they are not for big government. Sorry -- no sale.

• Re: More facts
• Posted by Martin on March 15, 2006 at 4:50pm EST

• Bart –

  You are still playing games. Please stop.

  In your message you challenged the author of the previous post to “name names, show calculations, and cite experts.” I took a few minutes to do a quick search and found some articles that came pretty close to what you wanted. Names – the president of Stanford U.; calculations – millions in “net deficits;” and experts – the NCAA research staff.

  Now you ask if I am “criticizing” or “advocating.” I am doing neither. This should be obvious to you. Please do not read into my message anything more than a simple attempt to provide what you asked for. I would appreciate not being criticized simply because I tried to be helpful.

  You also asked if I was “happy now” with respect to colleges being non-profit. All I can say is that if my university were facing a projected deficit of $47 million in its athletics program, I would at least know why I have to bring my own whiteboard markers to class.

  -- Martin (who has tired of the game and will post no more responses)

• Sports not at fault, Bunkie
• Posted by Bart J. on March 16, 2006 at 4:10am EST

• " .. all I can say is that if my university were facing a projected deficit .. "

  I'd quit. Wouldn't you? Who wants to work with losers?

  Some groups, including famed sports writer Frank DeFord, say there is too much money in college sports. Others claim it is unprofitable. Unprofitable minor sports have alumni support, while Title IX requires women's sports be funded; both drain profits from the major men's sports.

  Simplistic, boiler-plate slogans hardly capture the complexity of college sports. No college is forced to participate in sport programs, while most participants would strongly resist uninformed, naive, and grossly-biased attempts to end their programs and traditions.

  One more time: college sports are typically OUTSIDE the academic budget. Sports have NOTHING to do with the academic budget.

  Therefore: sports have NOTHING to do with someone's lack of dry-erase pens.

  Even if college sports were eliminated -- the humanities, the arts, and most social sciences would still be money-LOSERS. Nothing could make them profitable.

  How much simpler and direct does this have to be?

• NCAA.org: profitability debated
• Posted by Bart J. on March 16, 2006 at 6:10am EST

• http://www.ncaa.org/wps/portal/newsdetail?WCM_GLOBAL_CONTEXT=/wps/wcm/connect/NCAA/NCAA+News/NCAA+News+Online/Division+I/Division+I+self-sufficiency+expected+--+but+most+often+not+realized+-+8-29-05+NCAA+News&TITLE=Division+I+self-sufficiency+expected+--+but+most+often+not+realized+-+8-29-05+NCAA+News

  Well .. it appears, there is a difference of opinion about how "profitable" sports are. My, my, my.

  In the end: coaches get paid more because they have a higher risk of being fired; there is no concrete evidence that spending on athletics affects spending on academics, or vice-versa; academics who bring in grants and students get more institutional support; minor sports (men's and women's) are being dropped due to costs; any college president whose budget has serious problems is fired; Title IX requires women's sports be supported; no college is forced to participate in NCAA sports; and life goes on.