- Joined
- Aug 26, 2011
- Messages
- 91,818
- Reaction Score
- 351,445
Why the UConn athletic department’s $41 million deficit might not be quite as bad as it sounds
>>“Most schools are choosing to spend more than they generate in revenue," said Schwarz, who has written for publications including FiveThirtyEight, Deadspin and VICE and runs his own blog called Sportsgeekonomics. “That tells me that the wide consensus across a whole bunch of different kinds of schools is that the off-the-books benefits that athletics provides are worth spending a little bit of money." <<
>>When Schwarz says athletics are worth “a little bit of money” to major universities, he means $10-20 million, the amount that an average Division I school pays each year to maintain an athletic department, not the hefty $41 million figure that UConn spends. Still, Schwarz said, UConn’s official financial statement almost certainly overstates its deficit, due in part to accounting practices used in athletic departments across the country. <<
Thought this was an interesting point:
>>In theory, any bed taken up by an athlete with a scholarship could otherwise be filled by a non-athlete paying full tuition.
But Schwarz says that’s not necessarily true. At least some of the dorm rooms and lecture halls currently occupied by athletes would otherwise be filled by students paying less than full tuition, sometimes much less. And when athletic departments charge themselves for partial scholarships (which typically go to athletes in nonrevenue sports), it doesn’t credit itself for the portion of tuition that those athletes do pay to the university. For example, if a tennis player chooses UConn specifically because of his ability to play tennis for the Huskies, then pays half of the out-of-state tuition rate, that could arguably count as revenue generated by the athletic department. Instead, that player gets marked as costing the department thousands of dollars in a partial scholarship.<<
>>“Most schools are choosing to spend more than they generate in revenue," said Schwarz, who has written for publications including FiveThirtyEight, Deadspin and VICE and runs his own blog called Sportsgeekonomics. “That tells me that the wide consensus across a whole bunch of different kinds of schools is that the off-the-books benefits that athletics provides are worth spending a little bit of money." <<
>>When Schwarz says athletics are worth “a little bit of money” to major universities, he means $10-20 million, the amount that an average Division I school pays each year to maintain an athletic department, not the hefty $41 million figure that UConn spends. Still, Schwarz said, UConn’s official financial statement almost certainly overstates its deficit, due in part to accounting practices used in athletic departments across the country. <<
Thought this was an interesting point:
>>In theory, any bed taken up by an athlete with a scholarship could otherwise be filled by a non-athlete paying full tuition.
But Schwarz says that’s not necessarily true. At least some of the dorm rooms and lecture halls currently occupied by athletes would otherwise be filled by students paying less than full tuition, sometimes much less. And when athletic departments charge themselves for partial scholarships (which typically go to athletes in nonrevenue sports), it doesn’t credit itself for the portion of tuition that those athletes do pay to the university. For example, if a tennis player chooses UConn specifically because of his ability to play tennis for the Huskies, then pays half of the out-of-state tuition rate, that could arguably count as revenue generated by the athletic department. Instead, that player gets marked as costing the department thousands of dollars in a partial scholarship.<<
