Another March has gone by, and another March madness has crowned its winner. The majority of Americans will in some way know that North Carolina was beaten by Villanova with a buzzer shot. College sports are highly engaging across cultures and age groups, and is for many just as engaging as professional sports. The most exciting College football- and basketball games are watched by millions, and acts like good publicity for many Colleges. However, these multi million sporting arenas and coaches’ costs millions to obtain yearly. And who is left to pay the bill, when the events can't generate enough revenue? This question has been discussed widely as college tuitions has had a massive increase the last decades.
For many Colleges athletic programs can be a costly investment. Some of the programs are dependent on up towards 90% of their costs through student and/or state fees, which can be huge numbers dependent on the size of the school and their program (insert source and example). The problem with this, is that many incoming students expect that their tuition money, unless otherwise stated, are used purely on increasing the academic aspect of their college experience. I would guess that the majority of students at various institutions have little too no knowledge about the amount they spend on funding athletic programs through various fees and expenses. However, there are examples of colleges where the athletic programs create enough revenue so they can cover all their expenses. The University of Arizona is such an example, where the program has been economically independent from state and university subsidies since 2003 (SOURCES). As mentioned this isn’t the case for most of the programs, so the reality is that many of these are an expensive investment for the colleges. But why do the schools use so much money on these programs when they’re so expensive? Due to what I mentioned earlier: its an investment. In 1984 a college athlete, at Boston College, threw a game winning pass in a football game against the University of Miami. This win created an increase in applicants for the Boston College for the coming academic years ("Flutie Effect"). Well performing athletic programs will in many cases result in an increase in applicants for the given college. For the colleges this results in better college ranking, and a possibility to raise tuition rates as there are more people applying for the same numbers of available spaces at the school. So in this regard many colleges can increase their revenue and status by using money on a well performing athletic program. I am not suggesting that this is the case for all colleges, but there is evidence to believe that this could be a reason for the willingness of the institutions to spend relative huge amounts of money on athletic programs.
When people think of the college sports, many might think of get-togethers with family and friends, about the social aspect the sports bring. For most people college sports are a great social aspect. Going back to the the point about an increasing amount of applicants for colleges with well performing athletic programs, could most likely be linked back to the social aspect of these programs. The academic performance of a school is not directly linked to the performance of its sport team, so most of the new applicants were most likely applying since they believed a well performing athletic team would increase their wellbeing at the selected college. Some might therefore include the athletic program as a variable that will decide where they choose to apply. A student at the University of Arizona, said during an interview that the athletic program at the U of A “wasn’t a deciding factor, but more of a bonus” (Ashraya). So the athletic program in itself might not be the deciding factor for many, but as with Ashraya, it might be a good bonus if they’re well performing. So the programs help the student have a socially good college experience, but could it be too much of the social? One study found in fact a negative correlation between studying and the athletic season. The study suggests that there is more drinking and less studying among male students during the athletic season (Lindo, Swensen, and Waddell), something the U of A student earlier interviewed, Ashraya, agrees with could be the case at the U of A as well.
Athletic programs at colleges has aspects benefitting both the colleges and the students. However, it should be mentioned that most people don’t attend college to watch sporting events, their primary reason is the academic aspect. In no way do I believe you should get rid of college sports however, I believe schools should be more open about the actual costs for these programs, that are paid indirectly and directly by the students. I personally enjoy going to these sporting events, especially basketball and football, but I also remember the number one reason to why I came to college: the academics.
For many Colleges athletic programs can be a costly investment. Some of the programs are dependent on up towards 90% of their costs through student and/or state fees, which can be huge numbers dependent on the size of the school and their program (insert source and example). The problem with this, is that many incoming students expect that their tuition money, unless otherwise stated, are used purely on increasing the academic aspect of their college experience. I would guess that the majority of students at various institutions have little too no knowledge about the amount they spend on funding athletic programs through various fees and expenses. However, there are examples of colleges where the athletic programs create enough revenue so they can cover all their expenses. The University of Arizona is such an example, where the program has been economically independent from state and university subsidies since 2003 (SOURCES). As mentioned this isn’t the case for most of the programs, so the reality is that many of these are an expensive investment for the colleges. But why do the schools use so much money on these programs when they’re so expensive? Due to what I mentioned earlier: its an investment. In 1984 a college athlete, at Boston College, threw a game winning pass in a football game against the University of Miami. This win created an increase in applicants for the Boston College for the coming academic years ("Flutie Effect"). Well performing athletic programs will in many cases result in an increase in applicants for the given college. For the colleges this results in better college ranking, and a possibility to raise tuition rates as there are more people applying for the same numbers of available spaces at the school. So in this regard many colleges can increase their revenue and status by using money on a well performing athletic program. I am not suggesting that this is the case for all colleges, but there is evidence to believe that this could be a reason for the willingness of the institutions to spend relative huge amounts of money on athletic programs.
When people think of the college sports, many might think of get-togethers with family and friends, about the social aspect the sports bring. For most people college sports are a great social aspect. Going back to the the point about an increasing amount of applicants for colleges with well performing athletic programs, could most likely be linked back to the social aspect of these programs. The academic performance of a school is not directly linked to the performance of its sport team, so most of the new applicants were most likely applying since they believed a well performing athletic team would increase their wellbeing at the selected college. Some might therefore include the athletic program as a variable that will decide where they choose to apply. A student at the University of Arizona, said during an interview that the athletic program at the U of A “wasn’t a deciding factor, but more of a bonus” (Ashraya). So the athletic program in itself might not be the deciding factor for many, but as with Ashraya, it might be a good bonus if they’re well performing. So the programs help the student have a socially good college experience, but could it be too much of the social? One study found in fact a negative correlation between studying and the athletic season. The study suggests that there is more drinking and less studying among male students during the athletic season (Lindo, Swensen, and Waddell), something the U of A student earlier interviewed, Ashraya, agrees with could be the case at the U of A as well.
Athletic programs at colleges has aspects benefitting both the colleges and the students. However, it should be mentioned that most people don’t attend college to watch sporting events, their primary reason is the academic aspect. In no way do I believe you should get rid of college sports however, I believe schools should be more open about the actual costs for these programs, that are paid indirectly and directly by the students. I personally enjoy going to these sporting events, especially basketball and football, but I also remember the number one reason to why I came to college: the academics.