The Financial Side of Athletics/Academics

[Box and Won]

I was recently re-reading the article in the Post-Dispatch from a few months ago describing Cheryl's fundraising efforts and the fact that we only fund approximately half of the scholarships allowed under NCAA regulations, which got me thinking...

- The impact of fully-funding (or even funding three-quarters) our athletic scholarships would be huge. Having a larger number of full and partial scholarships could help us attract better athletes and be more competitive in the A10.

- Do the individual teams stage their own fundraisers? If so, they don't seem to publicize them very well.

- I'm assuming that the women's soccer team and the baseball team received some sort of cash payouts for making their respective NCAA Tournaments - if so, does this money go back into the programs or to the general athletic budget?

- Do our Billiken Club donations help fund scholarships?

- In terms of the number of scholarships funded, how do we stack up against our peers (namely, A10 schools and other Catholic/Jesuit schools)?

- What exactly is the function of our endowment? Seeing as how our endowment is significantly higher than just about any of our peer institutions, couldn't some of it be funneled towards athletic scholarships?

[Billsboys]

Good points!! That's the biggest obstacle most sports at SLU face. Outside M/W soccer and bball, and volleyball, funding is terrible. Even in the more supported sports, budjets are not compareable to other schools. That's why when a coach does have success at SLU he is looking for a better situation. You must remember Football runs college athletics. A lot of football programs finance a majority of the athletic departments around the country. That's why when people on this board refer to SLU being big time because of this arena it is so far fetched. As long as SLU does not play football in a good conferece they will always be behind the 8 ball. I think the arena will help with recruiting and other aspects but if people out there think this arena is going to solve most of the problems this depatment has, they will be sadly dissappointed. My advice for people that are interested in funding a certain sport is to call the coach directly and ask them how to go about doing it. When you give to the billiken club and other fundraising activities, the funds are dispursed throughout the whole department. When I was coaching, I set up accounts in which donors could give money and that would go directly to my program. I believe SLU is the same way.

[billiken_roy]

when you take into consideration the number of scholarships that a school will committ to plus the coaches (remember, every men's scholarship = a woman's and those extra women athletes need a corresponding coach) plus the expense of the practice and game facilities, training facilities, equipment, insurance etc, i seriously doubt that football funds the majority of athletic depts. in fact, i would venture to guess once you get by the top 50 football schools, most of the remaining schools are losing money on football.

sure the big time conferences and teams are raking it in with tv and selling 80,000 tickets per weekend, but the likes of semo, siu, etc dont have any revenue stream close to that.

[Billsboys]

Roy, it goes much deeper than the top 50. I know several college programs that are in the 80's and 90's and non BCS conferences where football generates a ton of money for the athletic program. Yes it does cost a ton of money to play football but people who back football usually do with deep pockets. Football is KING!

[kevinfootes]

There's nothing like the homecoming football game to get alumni to open their wallets. A homecoming soccer game is kind of a joke, I'm sad to say. Every team in a BCS conference makes quite a bit of money from tv and bowl games. That's way deeper than 50 schools. When you combine it with ticket sales it starts to add up.

If football were really a problem you'd see more schools dropping it. That hasn't happened in 50 years on any significant level. What suffers are the non-revenue men's sports. If you do any research it's pretty easy to see. You drop football and the checkbooks close up.

Also, schools like SIU and SEMO are 1-AA, meaning they don't give out as many scholarships for football.

[Tonka]

It also works against us financially because of our tuition costs correct? If we land a recruit it costs the Athletic Department the cost of our tuition. If another school lands a recruit with a cheaper tuition than it costs that AD less. Correct?

[bills16]

22 less scholarships at the 1-aa level.

[dmeno]

This is topic that has vexed me for the last 30 years. In the dim past when I was active and on the board of the tip-off club and attended meetings with the adminstration regarding bball and other sports. A scholarship,other than room and board, at a university of 10000-12000 enrollment is nothing more than an accounting entry.

An additional 20-30 scholarships costs the U nothing. No additional instructors needbe hired, no additional classrooms need constructed etc. Hockey was lost based on the full cost of scholarships, not the actual cost. The program was operating with a positive cash flow and had become nationally prominent.

The bball budget back then, due to the accounting myth, required fund raisers and personal contributions in order for the team to eat at a restaurant other than McDonalds.

Athletics are the cheapest public relations tool a University can use. See contribution increases during the Spoon years.

In my humble opinion Fr Biondi, being a good business man, should be approached in this manner to give the Department a five year committment of full scholarshis and thn evaluate the financial return, both in contributions and applications for admissions. Great study for the business school.

End of Rant!

[Box and Won]

That's something I've always wondered about as well - when it's just a matter of having an extra body in a classroom, how does that cost the university anything?

[DoctorB]

when

>it's just a matter of having an extra body in a classroom,

>how does that cost the university anything?

Hey guys; lots of interesting and complicated issues here.

classes have limits for enrollment. when an athlete takes a spot, some other non athlete student misses out. think of all the other stuff that the students gets too--food, electricity, water, this, that. even computer space, nowadays!

I have also said this in the past-- football gnerates a lot of revenue: yes and no. all colleges are non-profit, and law requires that money gets spread all over the athletic dept. no school, other than a very few like Notre dame, are making any $$ on college sports. The really good point being made is that SLU does not have that extra $$$ coming in from football to help float the other dozen or 2 of programs that are losing money.

just a few quick thoughs;

peace,

[bills16]

a few years ago sports illustrated, i believe, did a feature article about d-1 fottball and the the costs that go with it. according to this article only a handful of schools make money.

[dmeno]

The electricity, water and other fixed overhead items when spresd over 5-6000 undergrads is miniscule. Room and board are the only variable overhead items. The number of scholarships necessary to cover the full allotment for all sports (55-60)would not close out classes or overly burden the university facilities. The point being, that from a budget standpoint charging a scholarship at full value against the athletic budget is an accounting myth. When balanced against the pr and advertising benefits it is vitually -0-.

As in any business, there is no gain without risk, and this would be a very small financial risk for the university in real dollars.

End of second rant.

[DoctorB]

you make some good points. You are correct that the overhead is basically fixed. But so is the number of enrolling students. And you are wrong that the athletes will not close out classes. Our classes are regularly overbooked, for instance. Undergraduates are scrambling every semester to get into overbooked classes. I guarantee that a number will camp out on my doorstep, literally begging to get into my classes. some of that is my unimpeachable wit and charm, of course (in my dreams); most of it is there are only so many slots. So for every athletic scholarship, we miss out on revenue from paying students--end of argument.

We have a fluid cap every year for incoming students (around 1550)--but it is a finite number. Every athletic (or other) scholarship eliminates a paying student, or part of a paying student (i.e., the paying students generally do not pay full tuition. some do -- I have no idea how many--but I would guess that over 50% get some assistance).

I hope you are not in favor of enlarging already overlarge classes. Or enlarging the university itself. Bad idea.

[Cowboy]

but aren't these student/athletes already on campus?

i don't believe the debate on this right now is about adding s/a's or additional sports, but just how much the non-full scholarship athletes pay to play for our school

[kevinfootes]

How many scholarship athletes does SLU even have? Is it less than 50? Saying they add to costs is like saying that the 101st guest invited to a party will have a big financial impact compared to only inviting 100.

[dmeno]

You are correct sir.

[DoctorB]

I am not a mathematics professor, but perhaps someone can tell us what 50 x $25,000 is? (Add to that the cost of room and board, medical support, and books and materials, lab fees, etc.)

50 students may only be roughly 1 %; however when the budget is huge, that 1% is pretty significant.

[NashvilleBilliken]

Obviously that's a lot of money (1.25mil). But what are the benefits of having the extra scholarships...you can't look at this as simply losing money. What if our baseball team now has a full scholarship load. Our players improve now because we can instantly go after a higher caliber player. This team goes to the college world series. What's the payout there? How is enrollment affected? More applicants, which means we'll have more high caliber students applying (statistically).

As Dmeno stated, there's obviously risk associated with this. But I think the potential benefits far outway the potential problems.

[MU88]

>

>I am not a mathematics professor, but perhaps someone can

>tell us what 50 x $25,000 is? (Add to that the cost of room

>and board, medical support, and books and materials, lab

>fees, etc.)

>

>50 students may only be roughly 1 %; however when the

>budget is huge, that 1% is pretty significant.

Sorry, but this is baloney. You are telling me that adding 50, or yes 50 students, to a class of 1550 would overburden the system. Give me a break. You put another chair in the room for freshman english. That is it. Plus, say you are adding scholarship football, 50 is the maximum the school could add to any class. In reality, the 80 football and 80 female scholarships are spread out over 5 years or only about 32 students per class. For non-scholarship football, the players pay tuition, so your argument is even more suspect.

Face it, except for room and board, the University will not have to spend another dime on the players. In addition, having a football program will probably lead to attracting better students, attracting sought after male students, and increasing fundraising. Here are a couple stories for you to read:

http://www.floridatoday.com/apps/pbcs.dll/.../607160324/1002

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/10/educatio...470a53a&ei=5070

Shenandoah, a campus of 1,500 students in Virginia's northernmost hill country, added football in 2000 when Mr. Bosworth was a senior in high school outside Washington.

That fall, he was one of 115 young men at the first day of football practice. Shenandoah was playing in Division III, in which athletic scholarships are prohibited. Six years later, Shenandoah still has a football roster of roughly 100, most of them paying nearly full tuition of more than $26,000 a year, including room and board. It has built three new residence halls since adding football, and campus life has been energized with the spectacle of 5,000 fans in the new, corporate-sponsored stadium.

Most important to Shenandoah officials, the team has narrowed the gender gap; the undergraduate enrollment is 41 percent male, up from 35 percent before football.

"You would be hard pressed to find five admissions officers or five professors or five marketing experts that could guarantee you 100 new, paying male students in one year," said Shenandoah's athletic director, John Hill. "But you can hire five football coaches and they can do it. In fact, they can find you 200 if you want. Those boys just want to play."

Dr. James A. Davis, now in his 25th year as Shenandoah's president, said: "I said no to football for 15 years, but I was wrong. Football is the best draw of qualified male applicants that there is anywhere. I am shocked more schools aren't adding football."

Football is popular among small colleges because the start-up costs for a nonscholarship program are less than $1 million, and that money can usually be raised from alumni. The annual football budget is subsidized by increased tuition revenue flowing from teams of at least 100 players. Methodist College in Fayetteville, N.C., routinely has 130 to 165 players. A typical Division I roster is 95 players.

[DoctorB]

Friend, you know not of what you speak so confidently. One man's "baloney" is in this case another man's treasure.

You just put another chair in the classroom, eh? What an enlightened, and reasonable idea! Why didn't we think of that??

Maybe because I am on the ground, and I am the one fighting the battles over that "extra chair," and believe me, it is somewhat more complicated than you imagine. We are talking about enrollment caps on classes, and sorry, but you really are clueless about the slippery slope of the ignorant, beancounter attitudes that your post implies.

During my time at Michigan State (only 3 years), the "extra chair, went from 21 to 23, then to 25, then, and additional "extra chair" literally written into the language, for a total of 26. 3 years, close to 20% increase, each class! Slippery, that slope.

Give me a break. I am trying to speak from the position of the hard-working, underpaid professionals whose lives are overburdened by this idea of just putting another chair in the classroom!

[Billiken Rich]

Doc, you are almost psychotically against any sort of growth of the student population. Bring in more students. Hire more teachers. Build more buildings. It's the American way.

PS I'm sure hearts are breaking all over St. Louis over the fact you feel overworked and underpaid. Maybe you should do what I do when I'm feeling unappreciated in St. Louis in the heat of the summer. Walk outside, start sweating in your suit, and then feel greatful that you are overworked in an airconditioned office/classroom.

[DoctorB]

Rich, you misunderstand. First, the basic position of the university is not to grow the size of the student population. It is not just my opinion, it is the basic opinion, and it is a good one.

Furthermore, you are missing the real issue: when students are added, teachers are not. In fact, in many departments, mine included, not only is the faculty not growing, it is actually shrinking. People retire or leave, and the position is not refilled. This is a very serious problem at SLU (and elsewhere), and uless you are in the business, you may not be aware of it.

Finally, I am extremely grateful for my job. I am glad you seem to be the same. However, that does not mean I want even more chores to do every year. Do you?

On the other hand, I am psychotic--just not in that particular way you mention.

[MU88]

>Rich, you misunderstand. First, the basic position of the

>university is not to grow the size of the student

>population. It is not just my opinion, it is the basic

>opinion, and it is a good one.

>

>Furthermore, you are missing the real issue: when students

>are added, teachers are not. In fact, in many departments,

>mine included, not only is the faculty not growing, it is

>actually shrinking. People retire or leave, and the

>position is not refilled. This is a very serious problem at

>SLU (and elsewhere), and uless you are in the business, you

>may not be aware of it.

>

>Finally, I am extremely grateful for my job. I am glad you

>seem to be the same. However, that does not mean I want

>even more chores to do every year. Do you?

>

>On the other hand, I am psychotic--just not in that

>particular way you mention.

I am sorry, but you seem to be operating under the same misconceptions that many faculty have. Money for athletics takes away money for academics. It is simply not true. Go look at the list of the top 100 national universities in US News. I believe that at least 93 play football at some level. I think its something like 23 of the top 25 play football. Go look at the top endowed schools, again 23 of the top 25 play football. It not a coincidence that most of the schools are the same. Football money is responsible for taking ND from being a "Mickey Mouse school 30 years ago" according to the AD at Arizona (I will link the article if you want) to being a top academic institution. Here is a little blurb from an article on Florida football. Catanese is the President of FAU.

"Among his positions prior to going to FAU, Catanese was a dean at the University of Florida. He regularly took potential donors to football games. In the president's box at Florida Field, there were three special rooms set aside where he could take wealthy sports fans during or after games and talk to them about donating to the architecture department.

"So here we were in the middle of a football game, and I'm talking to somebody about endowing a chair," Catanese said. "I had people who said they would be willing to give me an endowed chair if I could assure them good seats at the football games."

The smart and clever schools use athletics to improve academics. This is the plan Donna Shalala implemented when she became President at Wisconsin. In the past 15 years, Wisconsin has risen up the rankings and increased their research dollars by leaps and bounds, and most leaders will tell you that the acheivements of the sports programs are the main reason. Winning brings in money and higher quality students. The money is then used to increase the academic reputation of the school. Its a win-win for the university. Unfortunately, just like the many in business who look for short term profits instead of longterm gains, professors tend to do the same.

[lefty]

is peculiar to academics ? I hope you're smarter and more enlightened than your discourse indicates. This is the way businesses now operate. Jobs are eliminated or unfilled through attrition and the workload for the remaining workers increases. Geez, venture outside the classroom (ie the real world) occasionally and you'll find you're not telling us anything that hasn't been protested for fifteen or twenty years.

[DoctorB]

Should universities be operated like businesses? That certainly is the trend. I do not like that trend.

Is my world not the "real world"? Hmmm... well it is real enough for me. I just think it is of a different kind of model than a for-profit corporation. I certainly hope it is, esp. a Jesuit school.

In fact, in the past, universities were somewhat different; sort of designed in a monastic style, a more pastoral and intellectual world set apart from what you call the real world. Not anymore. Universities are now being Mcdonaldized, or Walmartized, choose your metaphor.

It sounds like you consider that a good thing. If so, I guess we just should agree to disagree.