How can you say that we're doing things the right way when we have to subsidize the athletic department with millions of dollars every year.  At the same time, between 2005 and 2011, we've gone from academic spending that was above the MAC and FBS median to slipping below both.  Athletic spending went up over 100% during that time--funded by subsidies--while academic spending went up only 8%, which if you adjust for inflation is actually a net decline.

Where is the benefit to these tens of millions of dollars dumped into the athletic department over the last eight years?  Some say we're attracting better students because of it, but I've shown you that our freshman class profiles have been essentially stagnant since 2005.  Others say that we've attracted more applicants.  Applications are up, but so are Ohio high school graduates as those increases coincide directly with the peak of the baby boom "echo" graduating from high school.  What do you think is driving those applications?  A clearly defined and proven demographic trend or a highly debatable and suspect "Flutie effect?"

Say what you want about the school up the road, but that monstrosity of an athletic department funds itself and doesn't drain money either from the academic side of the university budget or from the students in the form of direct fees.
 

Ohio University's overall budget (and that's everything: med school and branch campuses) is 707,603,000.  The budget for the Athens campus is $571,373,000.  This is against an athletic budget of $25,470,296 and institutional subsidies and student fee subsidies of $19,576,760.

Now, I'm gonna sit down at Granny's kitchen table and do some cypherin'  Hopefully, I remember to carry my aught.  What I get is that the athletic department budget of $25,470,296 actually amounts to 3.6% of the entire (med school and branch campuses) budget.  Hell, the subsidy alone is over 2.8% of that budget.  But what I really feel is applicable is its relationship to the Athens campus budget where it is 4.5%--over twice your number.  The subsidy alone is 3.4%.

In a perfect world, where the university wasn't being starved for cash in many of its core missions, I wouldn't care about the subsidy.  We don't live in that perfect world, and choices need to be made as to where to allocate funds.  In that world, the subsidy is an inefficient waste of money and could be spent in much more effective ways to make Ohio a better university and one more attractive to top students and faculty.

 

Actually, I can't stand Vedder.  See my broken clock analogy above.  I think he uses some broadly popular notions and issues that I think are legitimate areas of debate (tuition increasing well beyond the rate of inflation, athletic subsidies) to promote an agenda that I find abhorrent (ending all student aid and essentially gutting the concept of public higher education).  I'm no fan of the man at all.  I think he's disingenuous at best and more likely a hack to be honest.

As for the post above yours, I think a rational basis for athletic subsidies (and I'm off the cuff here) would be say no more than 25% of the athletic department's budget (currently 77% at Ohio) and no more than 1% of the university's budget (currently 2.8% or 3.4% based upon whether one looks at the university's overall budget or just that for main campus).  

That would free up roughly 15 million dollars that could be used for merit scholarships.  That would fund 70 full scholarships with room and board for in-state students every year.  You want to close the gap with Miami and OSU for student recruitment, that's how you do it, not by pouring more money down the rabbit hole of athletics in the hope that some highly debatable "Flutie Effect" comes to pass.  Again, I became involved in this debate in response to posts that were stating we were attracting much better students that before our recent athletic success and that those (illusory) gains were somehow linked to athletics.