Ohio Basketball Topic
Topic: MAC Spends $4 Per Athlete to $1 Per Student
Page: 1 of 1
JSF
General User
Member Since: 1/29/2005
Location: Houston, TX
Post Count: 6,580
mail
JSF
mail
Posted: 1/17/2013 9:26 AM
That is, MAC athletic departments spend $4 per athlete to $1 per student in academic spending.

The crazy part? That's the smallest ratio in FBS: http://deadspin.com/5976391/sec-schools-spend-163931-per-athlete-and-other-ways-the-ncaa-is-a-bonfire-for-your-money
bobcat72
General User
B72
Member Since: 7/2/2011
Location: Athens, OH
Post Count: 540
person
mail
bobcat72
mail
Posted: 1/17/2013 9:52 AM
Wow...that is quite alarming. Very interesting article that gets you thinking. Thanks for sharing!
Ohio69
General User
O69
Member Since: 12/20/2004
Post Count: 3,124
person
mail
Ohio69
mail
Posted: 1/17/2013 10:57 AM
Something tells me the definition of "academic spending" is a big pile of crapola.

Anyway....  This type of research doesn't seem to be getting any traction.  Seems like there's some anti-athletics piece coming out every week.  Yet, athletics keeps on chugging.
Last Edited: 1/17/2013 11:02:06 AM by Ohio69
JSF
General User
Member Since: 1/29/2005
Location: Houston, TX
Post Count: 6,580
mail
JSF
mail
Posted: 1/17/2013 1:28 PM
Who said it was anti-athletics? Can facts not be presented without being labeled as such? I'm sure the SEC has no problem with this.
DayvidGallagher
General User
Member Since: 7/29/2010
Location: Houston, TX
Post Count: 206
mail
DayvidGallagher
mail
Posted: 1/17/2013 1:41 PM
It may not be anti-athletics but it is certainly biased in it's delivery.  It doesn't explain the details of the spending equally for both sides as a typical scientific paper would.  It is designed to be telling a story, not making an balanced evaluation.
Monroe Slavin
General User
MS
Member Since: 12/21/2004
Location: Oxnard, CA
Post Count: 9,121
person
mail
Monroe Slavin
mail
Posted: 1/17/2013 4:40 PM
At a very, very, very quick glance:  If it doesn't include the revenues that athlete-spending brings in, isn't it a poor analysis?

That is, if $1000 is spent on an athlete yet that brings in $2200 of revenue, aren't you ahead?
Pete Chouteau
General User
Member Since: 11/17/2004
Location: You Can't See Me
Post Count: 1,696
mail
Pete Chouteau
mail
Posted: 1/17/2013 8:22 PM
And what is defined as revenue? Ticket sales? Seat licenses? Charitable giving?
giacomo
General User
G
Member Since: 11/20/2007
Post Count: 2,763
person
mail
giacomo
mail
Posted: 1/21/2013 1:16 PM
The number of student athletes pales in comparison the general student population. Student athletes must travel, so you have meals. lodging and transporation. There are probably other costs I'm not thinking of at the moment.
Bobcatbob
General User
Member Since: 12/21/2004
Location: Coolville, OH
Post Count: 1,351
mail
Bobcatbob
mail
Posted: 1/22/2013 1:13 PM
giacomo wrote:expand_more
The number of student athletes pales in comparison the general student population. Student athletes must travel, so you have meals. lodging and transporation. There are probably other costs I'm not thinking of at the moment.


Right.  Isn't a study like this just stating the obvious?  Must be federally funded.

On the whole, it can't cost a penny more to educate an athlete and counting money spent elsewhere is illogical and self-serving for the "researcher".  Now, where the money to educate said athlete comes from - different question.

I'll bet universities spend more on drama majors, too, what with the sets, the costumes, lighting, make-up, posters, ushers, etc.  I think we should start cutting back on that stuff!
BillyTheCat
General User
BTC
Member Since: 10/6/2012
Post Count: 10,802
person
mail
BillyTheCat
mail
Posted: 1/22/2013 1:21 PM
Bobcatbob wrote:expand_more
The number of student athletes pales in comparison the general student population. Student athletes must travel, so you have meals. lodging and transporation. There are probably other costs I'm not thinking of at the moment.


Right.  Isn't a study like this just stating the obvious?  Must be federally funded.

On the whole, it can't cost a penny more to educate an athlete and counting money spent elsewhere is illogical and self-serving for the "researcher".  Now, where the money to educate said athlete comes from - different question.

I'll bet universities spend more on drama majors, too, what with the sets, the costumes, lighting, make-up, posters, ushers, etc.  I think we should start cutting back on that stuff!


Actually it does cost more to educate an athlete than the typical student, because of the "services" that Athletes receive that are redundit to basic services that the student receives.  Services such as their own computer labs, academic advisors, and healthcare.  Then you have the benefits that each institution can provide that are permitted by the NCAA, such as per-diems when not in school or travel, separate dining facilities (not at Ohio I believe) and living quarters (see UK).  However, as far as this study goes, yeah it's just common sense that Athletes receive more in $$$ spent, because the institution has an investment in these athletes.
Showing Messages: 1 - 11 of 11
MAC News Links



extra small (< 576px)
small (>= 576px)
medium (>= 768px)
large (>= 992px)
x-large (>= 1200px)
xx-large (>= 1400px)