College Sports: The Athletic Arms Race

Oregon State University spent more on renovating its stadium in 2005 than the annual US government effort to prevent AIDS in sub-Saharan Africa. To be more precise, 80 million dollars were used for the expansion of the Reser Stadium (displayed on the right). Two years later, OSU has recommenced its athletic development program. This time the figure is 35 million dollars, a fairly colossal price tag for phase two of the project. The new money will go towards full time nutritionists for athletes, further expansion of the stadium, and a larger than life video screen. The screen will be the largest screen in the Pac-10 Conference, measuring 30 by 120 feet. Frankly, this may just be overkill.

OSU is not alone in this venture of big budget investment in their athletics. Oklahoma State is spending $165 million on an athletic village, while the University of Southern California’s newly opened Galen Center costs a hefty $143 million. These facilities are viewed as “infrastructures to success” and are intended to help enhance and perhaps even change athletic programs. Already, Trojan Basketball looks to have a promising season because for the first time, the men’s team is ranked number 25 by the AP Polls. Moreover, top high school recruit O.J. Mayo (shown on the left) will be joining the Trojan family next year, and Brandon Jennings the year after that. Interestingly, Mayo scouted USC out instead of vice versa, due to its new athletic facility and more importantly because of its proximity to the Hollywood limelight which should generate further buzz about the young athlete’s superstar potential for the NBA. However, state-of-the-art complexes are not a prerequisite to victory. Duke University’s basketball team practices in a modest facility across campus, yet they have managed to win three national championship titles since 1991. The University of Miami also enjoys a successful football program without having spent large sums of money on a new stadium.

According to Greg Johnson of the Los Angeles Times “NCAA data show that spending at big-time college athletics programs has increased at two to four times the rate of spending elsewhere on campus -- even as the rate of revenue increases slows.” Colleges devote a large part of the budget to athletics for a variety of reasons. In college sport, winning is everything. Top teams generate a substantial cash flow and the athletic departments of college sport powerhouses earn the most money compared to any other department. Moreover, since most of the other academic institutions are investing in their athletics, it is difficult to simply put a halt to development of their sports programs. To cease funding could mean never winning a basketball or football game again, which in itself has many implications such as depleted school spirit, insignificant revenue or even losses from athletics, and perhaps a drop in national rankings. Another reason for an enormous athletics budget is due to Title IX which required equal representation of both sexes in sport. Women’s sports do not make nearly as much revenue as men’s. Therefore, institutions choose to heavily invest into their money making sports in order to facilitate the less popular sports. Institutions that decide not to partake in this athletic arms race must search for other monetary solutions to Title IX.

In fact, in large sports colleges, the coaches are better recognized as the face of these institutions than the institutional leaders. This is also reflected by the disparity in their salaries. For instance, Coach Pete Carroll earns approximately $2.5 million per year, while President Steven Sample receives about $762,000. Should coaches be running the universities? Clearly the answer is no, but their paychecks tell a different story. Another example would be University of Alabama’s Nick Saban (pictured on the right), who earns a cool $4 million while President Robert Whit pockets a relatively modest $572,620. Soon, it will be the norm for coaches to be earning about $5-6 million dollars. Yet this facet of the arms race is yet less worrisome than the explosion of stadiums and arenas.

Many benefits await a university with a championship sports team, namely increased applications and eased recruitment of athletes. This phenomenon is known as the “Flutie Effect”, which according to the LA Times refers to a “jump in Boston College admission applications sparked by quarterback Doug Flutie's Hail Mary pass in 1984 that gave his team a last-second victory over the University of Miami in a nationally televised game.” Students and athletes alike choose to apply to universities that win. An increase in applicants to a university translates into increased admission selectivity. It is not unreasonable to say that success of the Trojan Football
team has contributed to the surge in applications and also USC’s increase in national rankings according to US News and the World Report . Academically however, some institutions are suffering as athletes are accepted at the opportunity cost of more intelligent and diverse students. Furthermore, because of the high training demands of a student athlete, these individuals cannot maximize the educational and extracurricular opportunities (other than athletics) that colleges have to offer. Finally, the money could be better spent on research and improvement of academic facilities. team has contributed to the surge in applications and also USC’s increase in national rankings according to

As a rather rambunctious and extremely devoted sports fan, I most definitely concur that college sports deserve to hold a treasured and even revered position in a university. In fact, sport is often the crux of an institution’s identity. However, it appears that the primary purpose of academic institutions – to educate and research, is being eclipsed by the desire to develop and invest in a premiere athletics program.