Interesting article. It is really a blessing that OSU is not one of the schools that must seek state aid to cover the costs of the athletic department. I'm not sure how I feel about my tax money going to support athletic departments.
The data point that pops out at me is that "per-athlete spending at schools in each of the six highest-profile football conferences topped $100,000 in 2010." That's bonkers.
It sounds like schools (and, really, our sports-crazy culture) have their priorities turned around. I base my opinion strictly on the facts presented in the article. I'm interested to know what some of the other points of view are on this.
I read something about 2 years ago that showed Duke Basketball spent about $1 million per player per year... That number included coaching, travel, education, living, food, etc. Pretty ridiculous tho. If I could remember what the article was I would post it on here.
My friend, Jake Butt the michigan TE commit, said his scholarship is worth around 190,000 over 4 years
That includes coaching though, that is the kicker. If a coach makes $5 million per year, divide that by 85 scholarship players and you get almost $59k per player per year. Add to that an average of around $35k a year at your average Division 1 school and you're already at the $90k+ that they mention. You also need to add in medical staff, travel and hotels, meals, assistant coaches' salaries, etc and the number is astounding. However, very little money is used from general students and tax payers in paying for all these things. Bigger schools like OSU, Texas, Michigan, etc are all fully funded by their athletic department.
I didn't even think about coaching, but your right that adds up quickly. UFM made 4 million. The rest of the coaching staff made a combined 3.6 million. That means just with coaches salary we are nearly at $90,000 per player. Add in the rest of the things you mentioned and we are easily way over the 100K mark.
You have to look at the return you're getting on your investment. I read an article on forbes estimating the value of the Michigan football brand at about 700 millions dollars, and OSU was around 500 million. I know we spend a lot on athletes, but Jesus, 500 million dollars? Think of the immense good OSU's investment in their student athletes has done for the non-athlete student. How many building have been built? How many poor kids got a shot at an education they would have never gotten if it wasn't for the extra cash from sports? How many computers have been bought for the math department? How many sets have been built for the drama department with football money?
Now ask yourself, how many buildings has the english department built? What kind of return on your money do you get when you educate someone in 18th century Brittish literature as compared to say Braxton Miller? It isn't even close! I know you don't like the price tag, but you're not following the thought to the logical conclusion. Yeah lots of money goes in, but then lots MORE money comes out. Let me ask you this, if you had a magic machine that for every dollar you put in you got a dollar and ten cents back would you put your money in? Hell yes!
Here's the difference between the athlete and and the non-athlete student: The athlete PAYS IT FORWARD.
Our honor Defend!
OSU is a unique circumstance. Most athletic departments spend more than they bring in. In fact, Division I athletics have bee quite a drain on academics. Look at the problems UNC recently had where they couldn't hire the adequate amount of professors, because they had spent too much on athletics while receiving too little of a return.
Former Ohio State athletics "money man" Ben Jay guest-lectured a grad school public policy class I took last summer, and addressed this very issue - namely that Ohio State, Michigan, Texas, and I think three other athletic centers are real profit centers, and most other schools receive some sort of cash infusion from their universities to cover the cost of doing business.
Ohio State football, bringing in tens of millions of dollars each year, truly is an anomaly in the grand scheme of things.
Here is what UT Austin is doing with the $$$ that is beginning to flow in from LHN.
Biggest eye-catcher: "The appointments make for a total of seven endowed academic chairs funded by earnings from the Longhorn Network."
So in the case of big universities with profitable athletic departments (like OSU and UT), stats that point to expenditures per student versus per athlete may not be so relevant when you take into account endowed chairs and the like. It's a much more complex and multifaceted issue than the USA Today article suggests.
On a related note, does anyone know what OSU does with the windfall it receives from BTN? Has OSU created any endowed chairs or scholarships?