Apples to oranges?

” .. If anything proves that big-time college football and basketball has little to do with higher education, it is these coaches’ deals.”

While comments such as “beer and circuses” can be amusing and entertaining — trying to compare faculty who are government-subsidized employees with an ancient, albeit currently-legal protection of tenure with administrators who can be fired on a moment’s notice is like trying to compare entry-level employees with CEOs.

Utterly laughable, absurd, and ridiculous.

Want to bring down big-time college sports? Get the public to stop supporting them. The market will do the rest, as the late Milton Friedman (R.I.P.) would probably note.

Until then — why not try teaching to high academic standards? That is the purpose of college, isn’t it?

B.D., at 6:40 am EST on November 17, 2006

K.T.—are you kidding me

Please present empirical evidence of your statements. I do not know what institution you are talking, but I know of not one that truly pays 100%.

Also what is your evidence that giving begins at athletics and athletic supports the academic division?/ How is that possible when over 90% of athletic departments lose money? Please see the Orzag report on the NCAA website, or review the Knight Commission website, or www.thedrakegroup.org. All sites have empirical reseach that debunk the myth that athletics is a financial boon to an institution, increases giving, quality of applications, giving to academics—or even athletics.

The best that can be determined is a modest short term on year spike in some of these areas at the most successful schools.

Unfortunately you are drinking the Kool aid of the myths where people try to justify the state of college sports—and KT it is simply not true. If you have evidence to support your claims—please enlighten me.

B. David Ridpath, Asst. Professor at ohio University, at 9:50 am EST on November 17, 2006

Well, I’m not going to put my institution here because I post her anonymously for a reason. But, you’re welcome to e-mail me at kamitoishi@hotmail.com and I’ll try and respond over the weekend with greater detail.

But, yes our academic division receives annual income from athletics for a number of scholarship and academic programs that otherwise do not have a funding source. And, yes there is some institutional money that goes to athletics (base salaries for coaches, mentors, etc. so it is not wholly self-sufficient) but the extravagant portions of athletics are indeed privately funded. I would view the base funding that goes to athletics no different than institutional base funding that goes to — what I view as — often superflourous faculty research, administrative functions, etc. Higher education answers to many different constituencies and there should be room for all to participate in the enterprise — not just those interested in the academic portion, which is only one component of university life.

And, I’ll dig up the dissertation and scholarly research that focuses on motivations for philanthropic giving. Unfortunately, I can’t release to you our institution’s own internal research that demonstrates that.

And, I don’t consume sugar so I’ve never tasted Kool Aid.

K.T., at 11:45 am EST on November 17, 2006

Orzag: NSD

Excuse me — I’ve actually read the Orzag report. Its bottom line: cannot say, one way or another, whether total impact of college sports is economically positive or negative. More research needed.

As for The Drake Group — everyone knows they are 100% anti-Division I. So why bother reading their reports, when the outcome is 100% pre-destined? It would be like expecting Howard Dean to endorse GWB.

B.D., at 12:55 pm EST on November 17, 2006

Agree with the Professor

Alums who give to athletics are actually LESS likely to give to the actual university because they think they have already given. Most athletic departments lose money, and it is the university that bails them out. I find it hard to believe that any educated person could say that athletics increases the success of a particular university. Providing a high class education would be the best way to improve the success of an institution.

I fail to see how sitting 85,000 people in a stadium every Saturday brings up the standards of a university.

Students do apply more to universities with winning programs, true. But who cares? Are applications a proxy for success? I don’t think so.

Mark, at 3:40 pm EST on November 17, 2006

The reason that football/basketball coaches earn so much more than the average faculty member is that the market dictates their worth. The coach who is able to compete at the national level is a rare one, and limited supply drives up compensation. Twenty years ago Texas A&M began offering million dollar contracts to professors who had won a Nobel in their field. Again a very small population from which your supply is drawn. Are any of these guys worth it? It depends upon what you demand.

Michael, at 10:00 pm EST on November 17, 2006

Your answers—and your turn

I apologize for my blogging grammer (sic intended for humor). Just typing too fast—but touche’

On our website there are several articles and statements where we tout the benefits of athletics and college students playing college sports. There are also many publications and media articles that state that. However I will specifically refer you to our St. Louis conference where I said that to the media. It is all there.

As far as people not buying tickets—that is not the issue. They will still buy tickets if there are actual students playing who are getting a legit education—period.

On to Orszag—but let me preface by saying that I am only repeating what Dr. Brand and his minions are saying—that many of the myths surrounding the benefits of college athletics are flat out wrong.

Here are some examples for you to ponder:

“Much of the rhetoric intercollegiate athletics is based on two starkly opposing views,” said Peter Orszag. “One suggests that increased spending on college sports is the road to riches, and the other claims it is the road to ruin. Although you find case studies in which either position can be validated, empirical data in our interim study suggests that neither view is correct for a broad array of schools.”

In fact, the study shows:

Operating expenditures for athletics are a relatively small share of overall academic spending, roughly about 3.5 percent of total higher education spending for Division I-A schools.

Increased spending on football and basketball produce neither an increase nor a decrease in net operating revenue, on average, over the eight-year study time span. The study finds that one dollar spent on football or basketball is associated with, on average, about one dollar in additional operating revenue.

Increased spending on football or men’s basketball does not produce medium-term increases in winning percentages, and higher winning percentages do not produce medium-term increases in net operating revenue.

There is no correlation between increased spending and increases or decreases in the measurable academic quality of new students or alumni giving.

An arms race can be defined as occurring when increased expenditures at one school trigger increases at other schools. Under that definition, the data on operating expenditures do not clearly show an arms race today. As the interim report states; however, “It is important to emphasize that the existence of an ‘arms race’ may be concentrated in capital expenditures, which are not adequately recorded in the [existing] data. We find that many widelyheld perspectives about spending on big-time sports by colleges – by both proponents and opponents of such spending – are not supported by the statistical evidence.”

—What I cannot find are any case studies where the other side can be validated other than a short term spike.

I also recommend the following link from renowned economist Robert H. Frank

here is an excerpt— http://www.knightcommission.org/i...s/uploads/KCIA_Frank_report_2004.pdf

Do successful college athletic programs stimulate additional applications fromprospective students and greater contributions by alumni and other donors? And if so, is it likely that additional investment in such programs is a cost-effective way of increasing these benefits?

In this paper I first consider these questions from a theoretical perspective that focuses on the economic incentives confronting institutions that participate in big-timecollege athletics. I then review numerous empirical studies that have attempted tomeasure various aspects of the relationships between athletic success and success in other domains.

The findings reported in these studies are mixed, but the overall message iseasily summarized: It is that if success in athletics does generate the indirect benefits in question, the effects are almost surely very small.”

Now I have answered your questions—cleaned up my grammar. So—please present any evidence that we are 100% against Division I and any of your other conclusions.

B. David Ridpath, Asst. Professor at Ohio University, at 11:15 am EST on November 18, 2006

Thanks for admitting your error

” .. empirical data in our interim study suggests that neither view is correct for a broad array of schools.”

In other words — as is usually the case in soft-side academia — neither position could be established with the finality noted in hard-science academia.

Or — put another way — NO SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE between the non-finality of either side.

I’ve proven my point. I refuse to argue with yahoo’s whose inability to concede what they have just stated is legion.

No one has proven, with finality, whether or not big-time college sports can or cannot financially improve a college’s performance. For example:

U-M’s most-famous leaderhttp://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dl...cs.dll/article%3FAID%3D2006611180307

Ivy footballhttp://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/17...ball/17ivy.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

B.D., at 1:05 pm EST on November 18, 2006

No error here

Again look at the entire picture—and the Frank report. Not every report says no significance, and certainly the Orszag report does not say it in every instance. What is clear in every study I have seen, is no indication of significance in the way it appears you want it to be.

Just say that you love the current system and no changes need to be made. You are entitled to your opinion, however I have also done extensive research in this area (you may access this on TDG’s website) that support my contention.

Again—show me the benefits, because all of the studies you and I mention do show significance in many indicators. I have not seen one that supports it the other way.

Also—work on you grammar too. It is Joseph!!

We can agree to disagree—but there is no error on my part.

B. David Ridpath, at 8:05 am EST on November 21, 2006