When campus budgets are tight and athletics departments are under the microscope, college and university administrators use a variety of methods to determine which teams to cut and which to keep. Some look at downsizing from a purely financial perspective, cutting sports that cost the most to operate, either overall or on a per-athlete basis. Others consider the win-loss records and popularity of their teams, trimming those it seems few on their campus will miss. That all goes to say that there is no tried-and-true method for determining a sport’s value to an institution.
The State University of New York at Binghamton announced last week that it had agreed to a $1.2 million settlement that will lead to the departure of its suspended men's basketball coach, Kevin Broadus. Under Broadus, the basketball program achieved athletic success but found itself in the middle of a controversy over the admission of academically unprepared athletes and numerous arrests of players.
When college athletics programs cannot cover their expenses with generated revenue, they are forced to rely on funds allocated from their institution’s wider budget. Since only 14 National Collegiate Athletic Association member institutions report positive net revenues from athletics, nearly all NCAA athletics programs rely on this practice.
INDIANAPOLIS -- As much as they have been a favorite subject for (and in some cases target of) politicians and policy makers for the last two years, for-profit colleges have been comparatively little studied by researchers in higher education, and little discussed at the yearly gathering of such scholars.
Hazing incidents have been alleged on at least three campuses across the country during the past month -- the Universities of Arkansas and Utah and Yale University -- lending credence to the assumption that hazing is endemic to college life.