University Business - July 2010 - (Page 17)

<60% DATA P O I N T —Eligible community college students who completed the FAFSA in 2007-2008, versus 77% of eligible four-year students. —“The Financial Aid Challenge,” The College Board STATS WATCH Athletics Dollars and Values: How Transparent is Transparency? WITH A $71,097 DIFFERENCE IN median spending in favor of athletics over academics in Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS) institutions in 2008, it’s hard not to be a bit curious about where the money’s going. It seems, then, that the recommendation by the recent Knight Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics report, “Restoring the Balance: Dollars, Values, and the Future of College Sports,” in favor of greater transparency in athletic spending comes at a good time. “Financial data ought to be transparent and readily available to students, parents, trustees, and taxpayers who have a stake,” said William E. Kirwan, co-chairman of the Commission and chancellor of the University System of Maryland, at a press conference held at the release of the report. NCAA Interim President Jim Isch, in a prepared statement, agreed, saying that “the NCAA’s Dashboard Indicators provide presidents and chancellors a standardized look at their respective financials as compared to their peers.” A good start, but is it enough? There’s only so much that a set of numbers can explain, and true transparency requires much deeper analysis than a quick survey can provide. Morgan Burke, the athletic director at Purdue University (Ind.), gives insight into this “apples-to-apples” dilemma. A capital project, he explains, such as the current stadium construction Purdue is undertaking, will appear on the report as an operating expense. But, he asks, in what normal business is a capital project like this considered an operating cost? Money set aside to pay for this kind of endeavor should fall under a different category, he argues. “Mixing your ongoing recurring operating expenses with anything you do to update facilities creates a year-to-year distortion.” That’s why a quick glance at the numbers is not enough, Burke believes. The report also calls for 8 to 10 fewer scholarships at FBS schools from the current 85. Burke is concerned that a reduction in scholarships would mean a reduction in opportunities for student athletes. In response to the common accusation that athletic scholarship amounts increase at an unreasonable rate, he notes that scholarship awards grow in relation to the increase in tuition—so his hands are tied when it comes to allocating the monetary amount attached to athletic scholarships. “The American public reads headlines of conference expansions and the NCAA’s $10 billion dollar television deal and assumes that football and basketball are generating profits for universities to use for academic purposes. This is a myth,” says Amy Perko, executive director of the Knight Commission. More often than not, the report shows, athletic programs are hardly breaking even. But in the nature of true transparency, decision-makers must be careful that when they make spending cuts—and there are many places where this is both possible and advisable—they have the interest of the student-athlete in mind, the report stresses. “Everybody thinks it’s about the trophies and the rings, and they’re nice, but they tarnish,” Burke says. “It’s about the [student athlete] experience.” The full report can be found at http:// restoringbalance.knightcommission.org. —Eric A. Clayton Athletics Spending vs. Academic Spending Medians for academic spending per student compared to athletics spending per athlete, Football Bowl Subdivision institutions, 2005-2008* $90,000 $80,000 $70,000 $60,000 $50,000 $40,000 $30,000 $20,000 $10,000 $0 $11,079 $11,691 $12,182 $13,349 $61,218 — Athletics spending per athlete — Academic spending per student $74,712 $78,027 $84,446 2005 2006 2007 2008 * All figures are in current dollars and reflect spending at 97 of the 103 public institutions in the FBS. Academic spending reflects the full cost of education measure, including spending for instruction, student services, and shared overhead costs for academic, instructional, and operations support averaged per full-time equivalent student. Athletics spending includes all athletics operating expenses averaged on a per-athlete basis. SOURCE: “Restoring the Balance: Dollars, Values, and the Future of College Sports,” Knight Commission, using analysis from The Delta Project on Postsecondary Education Costs, Productivity, and Accountability universitybusiness.com July/August 2010 | 17 http://restoringbalance.knightcommission.org http://restoringbalance.knightcommission.org http://www.universitybusiness.com

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of University Business - July 2010

Univertsity Business - July 2010
Contents
Editor’s Note
College Index
Company Index
Advisory Board
Behind the News
Sense of Place
Community Colleges
Viewpoint
Money Matters
Annual Directory of Higher Education Consultants
Human Resources
Models of Efficiency
Lecture Capture: Policy and Strategy
Projecting New AV
Land Mines Ahead
End Note

University Business - July 2010