Spending more money on college sports does not lead to more victories or alumni donations, according to a study released Thursday by the NCAA.
The two-year project, billed as the most thorough of its kind, also said that out of 117 schools in Division I-A, only seven make money.
That's considerably lower than previously believed. The new NCAA study did not take into account state and public subsidies.
"It is myth breaking," NCAA president Myles Brand said of the study, initiated before he took office in January.
Brand did not advocate spending less money on sports. He noted that the association has no power to cap the amount that's spent, having lost a $55 million antitrust suit to "restricted earnings" basketball coaches.
But in difficult economic times for higher education, Brand clearly wanted to give NCAA presidents hard evidence they can use to counter pressure to spend money on sports.
At the same time, Brand noted that sports accounts for only 3.5 percent of an average school's overall budget.
"I think presidents and others have to examine the rate at which they want to spend their funds for athletics," Brand said. "They have to weigh that against the fact that the vast majority of them operate in the red. So they can't recapture, even in Division I-A, for the most part, the money that they're spending. Those are hard priority decisions and they fall squarely on the shoulders of the presidents of the institutions."
A major weakness, acknowledged in the report, is that it does not take into account capital projects such as stadium building and renovations, practice facilities and weight rooms. Those are often expensive projects cited by coaches as critical for attracting top recruits. And, coaches say, the facilities contribute to winning.
That attitude is often referred to as the "arms race" in college sports. The report said it couldn't find evidence of an arms race but reiterated that the authors didn't consider stadium building.
"The reason they can't find an arms race is that an arms race refers to new facilities," said Andrew Zimbalist, an economics professor at Smith College and author of "Unpaid Professionals," a book about college athletes.
The report, which used data from 1993-2001, was prepared by Sebago Associates, including Peter Orszag, who worked in the White House as special assistant to the president for economic policy.
Brand called the report "limited and preliminary." Future reports will try to sort out the disparate accounting used by athletic departments in an attempt to assess how much indirect university money goes to the sports department. An example would be police and security for games.
It will also cover capital expenses and coaches' athletically-related outside income.
"Changing attitudes and behaviors will be very difficult," Brand said. "But we have to bring some truth and reality into thinking about this."
http://www.indystar.com/print/articles/5/065241-7135-094.html
The two-year project, billed as the most thorough of its kind, also said that out of 117 schools in Division I-A, only seven make money.
That's considerably lower than previously believed. The new NCAA study did not take into account state and public subsidies.
"It is myth breaking," NCAA president Myles Brand said of the study, initiated before he took office in January.
Brand did not advocate spending less money on sports. He noted that the association has no power to cap the amount that's spent, having lost a $55 million antitrust suit to "restricted earnings" basketball coaches.
But in difficult economic times for higher education, Brand clearly wanted to give NCAA presidents hard evidence they can use to counter pressure to spend money on sports.
At the same time, Brand noted that sports accounts for only 3.5 percent of an average school's overall budget.
"I think presidents and others have to examine the rate at which they want to spend their funds for athletics," Brand said. "They have to weigh that against the fact that the vast majority of them operate in the red. So they can't recapture, even in Division I-A, for the most part, the money that they're spending. Those are hard priority decisions and they fall squarely on the shoulders of the presidents of the institutions."
A major weakness, acknowledged in the report, is that it does not take into account capital projects such as stadium building and renovations, practice facilities and weight rooms. Those are often expensive projects cited by coaches as critical for attracting top recruits. And, coaches say, the facilities contribute to winning.
That attitude is often referred to as the "arms race" in college sports. The report said it couldn't find evidence of an arms race but reiterated that the authors didn't consider stadium building.
"The reason they can't find an arms race is that an arms race refers to new facilities," said Andrew Zimbalist, an economics professor at Smith College and author of "Unpaid Professionals," a book about college athletes.
The report, which used data from 1993-2001, was prepared by Sebago Associates, including Peter Orszag, who worked in the White House as special assistant to the president for economic policy.
Brand called the report "limited and preliminary." Future reports will try to sort out the disparate accounting used by athletic departments in an attempt to assess how much indirect university money goes to the sports department. An example would be police and security for games.
It will also cover capital expenses and coaches' athletically-related outside income.
"Changing attitudes and behaviors will be very difficult," Brand said. "But we have to bring some truth and reality into thinking about this."
http://www.indystar.com/print/articles/5/065241-7135-094.html
