Is the tail wagging the dog at our nation's universities?

I've always been conflicted about the role of athletics at major universities. As a former athlete myself, I not only love watching college sports but also constantly argue in favor of their developmental capabilities. I believe that sports--both individual and team--develop traits that are both incredibly important and difficult to cultivate elsewhere.

But at the same time, my experience working in a collegiate athletic department exposed me to the massive world of big business that has developed around these programs, which was unsettling to say the least. I've long wondered if the explosion in revenues and attention paid to these programs was beneficial to the universities' core mission over the long term, and I believe that it remains an open question. I was glad, then, to see this article in the New York Times yesterday, focusing on the recent trend of major money flows to non-revenue generating sports.

All but 14 of the 120 athletic programs in the Football Bowl Subdivision — the highest level of college sports — lost money in the 2008-9 academic year, down from 25 profitable programs the year before, according to the NCAA.

Still, overall spending on sports has increased among universities with big-time programs, according to the NCAA. In 2008-9, athletic programs in the Football Bowl Subdivision increased their spending by nearly 11 percent over the previous year. At the same time, universities also increased their contribution to athletics, by 28 percent. That spending came even as the economic recession forced institutions to make painful cuts.

At the University of Florida, one of the largest and most successful programs, spending on athletics increased 6% last year even while the university was forced to slash budgets elsewhere--a total of 139 faculty and staff members have been laid off since 2007.

The reason, university officials say, is that the emphasis on sports pays off: athletics serve as the “front porch” of a university, a powerful marketing tool that generates free advertising on ESPN and the sports pages.

But economists have found it difficult to quantify a link between investing in a high-profile athletic program and reaping presumed benefits, like alumni donations or higher application rates. “If there’s any effect, it’s a blip: it doesn’t persist,” said Jonathan Orszag, an economist who has evaluated such issues for the NCAA.

I'd be interested to see more research on this effect, since I've seen anecdotal evidence on both sides. Schools like Boston College, Virginia Tech, and Southern Cal saw their national profile--and USNews rankings--skyrocket after their football teams became successful. But other schools--Oregon State and Oklahoma State immediately come to mind--have invested massively in athletics but not seen the commensurate bump in rankings.

I think this perceived "front porch" impact is even more questionable when it comes to investing in smaller sports, as the Times article mentions. Sports like field hockey and rowing rarely receive any national interest, so it would be hard to justify the increased expenditures in chasing championships there.

To be fair, many (or most) of these athletic programs are funded primarily by their own external foundations. Large donors give money not to the school, but directly to the athletic program foundations, in order to support both scholarship money and the building of new facilities. So perhaps the fault--if there is fault to be found--is with the donors themselves for prioritizing athletics over academics and research. They choose to support athletics in droves, and that is certainly their right. Perhaps time will tell if they are in fact doing what is best for their alma maters, or not.

[New York Times]