Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Marshall Diverts Millions to Athletic Programs - State Journal - STATEJOURNAL.com (http://www.statejournal.com/story.cfm?func=viewstory&storyid=81551 - broken link)
If you read the actual report, it shows that most schools that are the size of Marshall spend about as much or more on athletics. Schools of that size that aren't in a BCS conference don't get the millions of dollar payouts just for being in a certain conference. This means that those Universities must fund more of the cost of athletics through fees, etc. Pretty simple thing to figure out.
Here's another article on the subject by Doug Smock as well and an exerpt:
"Upon reading that Marshall students pay $890 a year, or $445 per semester, for the cause of Thundering Herd athletics, I wanted a recount.
I recalled from another era that some of the broad-based student activity fee goes to other purposes, such as recreation, student health services, student government, etc. Essentially, I want to see if the Center for College Affordability and Productivity is feeding us a good figure.
Another side to all this: As far as schools building their athletic fortress with student fees, Marshall is not exactly a champion among its mid-major peers. Back in 2002-03, Marshall was dead last in the all-public Mid-American Conference, only close to Eastern Michigan.
The MAC days were wrapping up when MU passed a $100 a semester "special equity fee," beginning with the 2004-05. Ostensibly, that helped the athletic department stay out of hot water in regards to Title IX. That put the student athletic fee at $204 a semester, which makes me wonder if the $445 figure that has both Charleston papers in a snit is even accurate.
Today, Marshall resides in a league with five other public schools and six private schools. David Steele, the numbers man in the athletic department, tells me Marshall's revenue from student fees was about $4 million in the 2008-09 school year, or roughly one-sixth (NOT one-half) of the budget.
That figure falls well below the average $6.4 million among the six public C-USA schools, but it is more than double the $1.77 million MU collected in 2002-03."
So do the math, $4 million (from students fees in one year) divided by 14,000 students is roughly $286 for the entire year. My guess is that Marshall knows their figures better than someone else doing a study looking for numbers to support a conclusion. I would also guess that the author of the study is lumping other fees in with the athletic fees as well, which also skews the figure.
Also of note this quote from the article that you posted "Burnside said one study conducted for Marshall showed its sports programs generated the equivalent of $100 million in television exposure for the school alone."
And then there's this study showing that Marshall is doing what they can to keep these costs down. Among all Non-BCS teams, Marshall has the 11th most expensive season ticket costs.
Based on all of this info, I'd say that the spending priorities at Marshall are on track with other schools of its size. It's not like atheltics, or other programs at Marshall, have to be funded by its own special tax or anything.
Okay, and I realize that there are different ways of looking at this. At the same time to subsidize an athletic budget to the tune of nearly 20% of tuition receipts when the instructional staff is among the lowest paid in America, and the classified staff is constantly whining about being underpaid? I'm not trying to start anything here, but there are those who say they should have stayed at the AA level. They are participating at the A level at great cost to several players in their mix.
I agree with you that they can't compete at that level without subsidies with no BCS funding, which makes it questionable whether they should be competing at that level since BCS funding does not seem to be in the offing. Just saying...
As posted above, the numbers for MU line up with other Non-BCS schools of the same size in Divsion 1-A. MU's numbers are actually $2.4 million per year less than the C-USA average for athletic funding derived from student fees. If you'll note as well, the numbers from Marshall's atheltic department tell a different story. The "study" claims that MU's per student atheltic charge is $890 per year, or 19% of tuition. Using the atheltic department's own numbers, the actual number for athletic charges per student is about $286, or around 6% of total yearly tuition. Looking at 19% versus 6%, that's a very big difference and shows how off the study was. One can't throw all other student fees in and claim it's going to the atheltic department. The Marshall Artists series or the Green Fee has nothing to do with athletics.
When doing a "study" like this though, the researchers are often looking for numbers to support a conclusion that was drawn before any research was even done. This study was from the Center for College Affordability & Productivity so of course they aren't going to be pro-athletics. They would have heard an earful if they had gone after the BCS schools because these are larger schools with more power so they try to limit athletic spending at Non-BCS schools. Then, if those schools have fewer athletics, that means fewer things for students and the community to do which likely means fewer students and less monetary support from the public for those schools. So are Marshall's atheltic programs worth $286 per student each year? I think so.
When you look at the actual numbers, the argument that you are trying to make begins to quickly fall apart. Also consider, if they were still at the Div 1-AA level, their costs would likely be higher as they would get even LESS money from the league they were in and would have to subsidize those costs even more. If anything, they need to work harder to raise more money through donations to be able to compete at a higher level. The higher the level, the more money you bring in.
It is interesting that Doug Smock did his own study and had different results. If I remember, he is a sports writer?
You're in Huntington, so you know about faculty and staff unrest concerning their salaries. I'm just saying they might have a beef here if the study's results are accurate. Perhaps not so much if Smock is correct.
Obviously, colleges have athletics in part for the publicity involved, and it is difficult to assign a value to that in terms of how it affects enrollment and the like. Just food for thought... but would playing at the top level of the AA division actually provide better publicity for Marshall than playing at the lower level of the A division and more bang for the buck, so to speak?
Smock didn't do a study, he just asked the source. Here's the quote again "David Steele, the numbers man in the athletic department, tells me Marshall's revenue from student fees was about $4 million in the 2008-09 school year, or roughly one-sixth (NOT one-half) of the budget." The study that was done didn't even talk with the athletic department, they just searched a federal numbers database with no clarification on what the fees were going toward. Which figure would you give more weight to?
It is doubtful that playing at a lower level of atheltics would provide more publicity. Which leagues get better TV deals and more coverage, higher or lower level leagues? Also, playing at a lower level WOULD mean less money coming in from the league via TV deals, marketing deals etc. Not really that hard to figure out. Ad MU did assign a number to the value of marketing that comes from athletics. Here's the quote since you must have missed that: "Burnside said one study conducted for Marshall showed its sports programs generated the equivalent of $100 million in television exposure for the school alone."
"...operating expenses for the 14 minor sports (excluding football and men’s basketball) totalled $7,098,543. Total revenue was $975,961."
Seeing how these sports generate only 14% of their costs, should they be abandoned? Think of what they can do with that extra $7 million + per year. They could fill in half of the funding gap from the $14 million + that was lost in state support. They could build the pedestrian bridge that they currently have no funding for. That would benefit students and the community. But to cut out those sports altogether, you would lose an important aspect of college which is athletic opportunities. While it isn't and should never be the focus of a university, it should always be part of the experience. So are spending priorities out of line at WVU? I'm willing to bet you'll say no.
Maybe they are? I'm not a big fan of non-revenue sports,
although I do see revenue potential at WV for soccer and
baseball. The Athletic Program there is basically self supporting
in spite of the non-revenue drain. But, they have essentially
been playing at the highest levels in football and basketball
since forever. I know the situation at Marshall is different,
and they don't have access to that revenue stream.
All I'm saying is "is it appropriate to question spending priorities"
in such a situation where an athletic program is not even close
to self supporting? And, you mentioned non-revenue. Would
the Herd athletic program be much closer to self supporting at
the A level if they were to ditch some of those sports?
Anyway, I'll be heading back to Huntington this Fall so see my
Mountaineers play there and have a couple beers at MacReedos.
Maybe I'll see you there?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
