Athlete vs Academic Spending Study

18 posts / 0 new
Login or register to post comments
Last post
January 16th, 2013 at 4:06 PM
#1
Buck35
Joined: 03/15/2010
MGoPoints: 145
Athlete vs Academic Spending Study

http://deadspin.com/5976391/sec-schools-spend-163931-per-athlete-and-other-ways-the-ncaa-is-a-bonfire-for-your-money

 

Interesting read about the amount universities spend on their students vs the amount they spend on their athletes.  SEC schools spend $169,931 per athlete compared to $13,390 per student.  Big 10 schools spend $116,667 per athlete and $19,225 per student.

I didn't post this as more  SEC-hating but rather as a repudiation of the NCAA sports culture in general.  I love Michigan and college sports as much as anyone, but it's getting  out of hand. I can't help but feel a tad guilty and outraged at the results of this study.   

 

Top
Tags:

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
January 16th, 2013 at 4:10 PM | Well to be fair there are a few universities (Score:5 Normal)
feanor
Joined: 09/27/2011
MGoPoints: 250

With enough football revenue to cover all of that spending without touching the general fund.  Michigan is one of those lucky enough to have that.

January 16th, 2013 at 5:19 PM | Feanor (Score:2)
burntorangeblue
Joined: 12/19/2009
MGoPoints: 798

as in The Silmarillion?  That's awesome, though it seems you're fated for a trip to Bolivia at some point.

de'nard dog: michigan, ever heard of it?

January 16th, 2013 at 4:10 PM | Unfortunately (Score:3 Normal)
ThWard
Joined: 07/10/2008
MGoPoints: 2631

That's an inevitable spread based on slapping "amateurism" on players that generate billions of dollars for the schools.

January 16th, 2013 at 4:10 PM | Not that I think the amount (Score:5 Normal)
tbeindit
tbeindit's picture
Joined: 01/28/2011
MGoPoints: 318

Not that I think the amount of money we spend on athletics is good, but do keep in mind that the money spent on athletics in many schools is completely raised by the athletic department. Meaning that, the universities really don't "spend" money on these athletes, it's money these athletes and former athletes raised for themselves.

Follow:

Twitter

Tremendous

January 16th, 2013 at 4:38 PM | True - and as feanor said, (Score:1)
Buck35
Joined: 03/15/2010
MGoPoints: 145

True - and as feanor said, Michigan is lucky to be one of the few schools that can cover these expenses.

But, I think the 'facilities' arms race really fuels the growth in athletic department spending at these universities.  It creates a crazed environment in which everyone is spending to compete for recruits.  Meanwhile, these facilities will be used by only a fraction of the student body. 

I think the NCAA needs to impose a cap on coaches' salaries as well.  Compensation is one of the biggest drivers of athletic spending and the student-athletes don't see a dime of it...

January 16th, 2013 at 7:39 PM | I was with you until that (Score:2)
GotBlueOnMyMind
Joined: 03/01/2012
MGoPoints: 125

I was with you until that last sentence. How does putting a cap on the coach's salary help the athletes. There are countless examples of how good or bad coaching can make all the difference in a program (look at Michigan Basketball, Oregon football, Notre Dame football over the past 20 years, Alabama before and after Saban). The fact is, a good coach can make good/great high school players into good/great college players, while bad coaches often let those same talented players stay underdeveloped, and therefore worse off in the long run (as they are then less likely to get drafted). Great coaches bring championships, and therefore money to the universities they coach for, and they deserve to be compensated to such ends (and programs that fail to evaluate good coaching deserve to pay for over-paying bad coaches in the hopes of reaping the benefits of good coaching).

Bo Schembechler BA, Bear Bryant Law.

January 16th, 2013 at 9:36 PM | I get what you are saying. (Score:1)
Buck35
Joined: 03/15/2010
MGoPoints: 145

I get what you are saying.  And right now, the best coaches can command the highest salaries because that is what the market dictates.  We have Mattison for a reason and he's not cheap. 

But here is why I think a cap would help the athletes.  It would create a level playing field among NCAA programs and presumably would prevent hot coaches from bolting for bigger schools that can pay them more.  I feel like this only hurts the kids who were recruited by that coach to play at that school.  

I also don't think it should be a priority for a university or athletic department to shell out millions of dollars for a head football coach. Saban & Calipari made $5 million + this season.  I don't think there is a problem with saying that they should do the same job for $1 million (which is still an exorbitant amount).  And if they want to make more, they can go to the pros.  

I just think the salaries are getting ridiculous.  I don't agree that universities deserve to overpay for poor coaching - my problem is that they are overpaid in the first place!  Also - these are not businesses in competition in a free marketplace  - they are academic institutions. 

January 16th, 2013 at 4:13 PM | Imagine what's "off the (Score:5 Normal)
willywill9
willywill9's picture
Joined: 09/22/2008
MGoPoints: 11256

Imagine what's "off the books".

Touchdown Michigan!

January 16th, 2013 at 4:39 PM | To be fair, this study lumps (Score:5 Normal)
1484
Joined: 06/21/2010
MGoPoints: 14241

To be fair, this study lumps in:

 

Athletic Department worker compensation

Travel and lodging for games

Recruitment costs

Scholarships

Equipment

I think it is important to have these programs.  They help build a social experience and provide a decent portion of the college experience as a whole, whether you are an athlete or not.  Add to that the fact that a lot of this is paid by the athletic department and you have a decent non-story aside from the comparison between conferences, which I found pretty interesting.

Hail.

January 16th, 2013 at 4:59 PM | They seem to miss some points (Score:2)
HipsterCat
HipsterCat's picture
Joined: 06/28/2011
MGoPoints: 229

The article wasnt quite clear is this spending per athlete/student per year? Are they just taking athletic department budgets and dividing by the number of athletes? I feel the scholarship takes up a large portion of the costs anyways, out of state tutitions with room and board is upwards of $40,000 a year i think. I mean most people already knew/assumed that schools spent more on athletes than regular students since us regular kids had to pay to go to the school and our tuition went to pay the teachers and fund research and other stuff like that.

 

January 16th, 2013 at 5:25 PM | The problem with studies is (Score:3 Normal)
GoBlueMAGNUS
Joined: 08/17/2009
MGoPoints: 621

The problem with studies is that they are usually skewed by whatever point the people doing the study want to make. You can skew statistics to say whatever you want to say really

Despite what the other guy calls himself, my name actually is Magnus.

January 16th, 2013 at 11:20 PM | Now if you had statistics to (Score:3 Normal)
UMgradMSUdad
UMgradMSUdad's picture
Joined: 07/02/2011
MGoPoints: 1955

Now if you had statistics to back you up on this, I would have believed you.

January 16th, 2013 at 5:32 PM | Did anyone notice how much (Score:2)
bluebyyou
Joined: 09/07/2009
MGoPoints: 2682

Did anyone notice how much the B1G schools spend on academics?  Anyone know why it is so much more than anywhere else?  I know we have cold winters and fuel costs are high, but seriously, our conference is no better academically than the PAC 12 or ACC schools.

January 16th, 2013 at 5:45 PM | 19,225 is a lot bigger than (Score:2)
GOLBOGM
GOLBOGM's picture
Joined: 11/20/2012
MGoPoints: 446

19,225 is a lot bigger than 13,390 a kid...  While the athelte discrepancy is interesting whats more important for a college is the education- and those numbers are pretty telling.  I'm more proud of what UM and Michigan mean academically than athletically- and would not trade our academics for athletic success.

January 16th, 2013 at 6:42 PM | Yes, but how much do athletes (Score:1)
Rather be on BA
Rather be on BA's picture
Joined: 08/29/2010
MGoPoints: 698

Yes, but how much do athletes make the university versus the average student (both while in school and once out)?  This looks bad, but you cannot simply look at it alone without considering questions such as the one above.

I do think the differences between the BIG and other conferences for non-athletes are pretty interesting though.

January 16th, 2013 at 6:51 PM | All the money athletes "make (Score:2)
MGoBender
MGoBender's picture
Joined: 03/26/2010
MGoPoints: 5138

All the money athletes "make the University" go right back into athletics.  Only a special few schools' ADs run at a profit which lets them give money to the University.

Another point that pro-pay-the-athletes don't see is that being an athlete is not just a free education - it's also a invaluable internship.

Take Mike Hart. Did he earn a paycheck to play football for Michigan? No, but he earned an exclusive experience that was the main requirement into going into the coaching profession.

CoE Class of 2007

January 16th, 2013 at 7:08 PM | Wouldn't that "right back (Score:1)
Rather be on BA
Rather be on BA's picture
Joined: 08/29/2010
MGoPoints: 698

Wouldn't that "right back into athletics" part include a huge sum of what is then spent on them?

Theme provided by Roopletheme; sidebars adapted from Chris Murphy.