Delta on Athletic and Academic Spending

7/29/2019 Delta on Athletic and Academic Spending

1/16

I

s

s

u

e

B

r

I

e

f

Intoduction

Fo many individuals, collegiate athletics is the most visible ace o highe education.

Mens ootball and basketball attact widespead television coveage, endosement

deals, and multimillion dolla coaching contacts, leaving most spectatos with the

impession that college spots ae a lucative business. But paticipation in National

Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) Division I athletic pogamsthe highest level o

intecollegiate athletics in the United Statescomes with a hety pice tag, one that is

usually paid in pat by institutions and students.

At public colleges and univesities,

Division I athletic pogams wee a

$6 billion entepise in scal yea (FY)

2010, with costs apidly spialing upwad

in ecent yeas. At the oot o these ising

athletic costs ae the multimillion dollacoaching contacts, a demand o moe

sta and bette acilities, and inceased scholaship commitments needed to keep

pace with ising tuitions (Kiwan & Tune, 2010). At the same time, colleges and

univesities have stuggled to contol cost escalation elsewhee on campus due to

declining state suppot and endowment income as well tuition pices that have continued

to ise (Desoches & Kishstein, 2012).

Advocates o college athletics ae quick to point out the nonnancial benets o college

spots pogams. Success in college athletics oten impoves name ecognition and

institutional pominence, and many believe that enollments and donations incease as a

esult. Possible benets aside, compaisons o spending on athletics and academics

aise questions about institutional pioities and whethe ising athletic subsidies ae

appopiate, paticulaly in the cuent budgetay envionment. Some institutions have

addessed cost issues by eliminating athletic teams o educing subsidies;1 but o

many institutions, spending on athletics is sacosanct, even when academic spending

(such as o aculty pay and academic pogams) is being cut o ozen.

Academic Spending Versus

Athletic Spending: Who Wins?Donna M. Doch J A N U A r Y 2 0

1 The Univesity o Ma yland, Univesity o Calionia at Bekeley, and rutges Univesity have all eithe ecently cutathletic teams o tied to limit athletic subsidies. But seveal othe univesities (Geogia State Univesity, Univesityo Noth Caolina at Chalotte, and Mece Univesity) ecently decided to begin NCAA Division I ootball pogamsto enhance thei eputation and spiit o community on campus.

This brief from the Delta Cost Project looks

at academic and athletic spending in

NCAA Division I public universities.


2/16

This bie2 highlights ecent tends in athletic and

academic spending at public Division I colleges and

univesities between 2005 and 2010, which show that:

Athletic depatments spend a moe pe athlete

than institutions spend to educate the aveage

studenttypically thee to six times as much;

among Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS) institutions,median athletic spending was nealy $92,000 pe

athlete in 2010, while median academic spending

pe ull-time equivalent (FTE) student was less than

$14,000 in these same univesities.

Athletic costs inceased at least twice as ast as

academic spending, on a pe-capita basis acoss

each o the thee Division I subdivisions.

Although academic esouces wee stained

ate the ecent ecession, only the FBS eined in

escalating athletic spending pe athlete in 2010;

nevetheless, athletic subsidies pe athlete

continued to incease in all subdivisions despite

these nancial constaints.

Vey ew Division I athletic depatments ae

sel-unded; instead, most pogams ely on athletic

subsidies om institutions and students. Howeve,

the lagest pe-athlete subsidies ae in those

subdivisions with the lowest spending pe athlete.Without access to othe lage evenue steams,

these pogams have inceasingly tuned to thei

institutions to nance additional athletic spending.

College athletics cetainly povide nonnancial benets

that ae impotant to institutions, such as campus spiit,

name ecognition, and eputation. But othe campus

benets appea modest, with boosts in applications,

enollments, o undaising oten a shot-lived bonus

esulting om a championship season. Despite lage

budgets, those in the top echelon o spending in the

FBS may indeed impat less o a nancial buden on

thei own institutions, but the vast majoity o Division I

colleges and univesities ely heavily on institutional

suppot as they ty to keep up. Eveyone likes a winning

team, but what is the cost?

Do Winning Athletic PogamsBenet Univesities?Paticipationand paticulaly successin Division I

college athletics oten esults in piceless advetising

o colleges and univesities, eaching potential

students, donos, and politicians. But evidence o the

ancillay benets o college spots is mixed.3 Successul

athletic peomance appeas to boost applications at

winning colleges and univesities, but aside om a ew

isolated examplessuch as the oten cited but lagely

exaggeated Flutie actothe eects ae typically

quite modest.4 The applications advantage is pimaily

associated with success in ootball (winning

championships in paticula), and the bump geneally

lasts only a yea o two.5 It is less clea whethe these

lage application pools esult in admitting a highe

quality class, but again the positive eects appea

modest and ae typically conned to ootball success.

Othe benets o winning athletic pogams oten aelinked to new evenues, o both the univesity and the

community. Most o the ecent studies on alumni giving

nd little connection between athletic success and

undaising; in the ew studies that do show eects,

it moe oten elates to ootball, athe than basketball,

success and is usually limited to athletic athe than

geneal univesity donations (Andeson, 2012; Getz &

Siegied, 2010). Howeve, thee is some evidence that

state legislatues may povide lage appopiations to

2 This bie updates and expands on a set o academic and athletic spending gaphs oiginally pepaed by the Delta Cost Poject o the KnightCommission on Intecollegiate Athletics. In 2010, the Delta Cost Poject developed athletic and academic spending estimates o Football BowlSubdivision (FBS) institutions o inclusion in Restoring the Balance: Dollars, Values, and the Future o College Sports (Knight Commission onIntecollegiate Athletics, 2010). The ndings wee updated the ollowing yea and expanded to include the Football Championship Subdivision (FCS)and the Division I, No Football (DI-NF) subdivision. These gues wee updated again in 2012, adding data though FY 2010, and published on theKnight Commission website (Knight Commission on Intecollegiate Athletics, 2012). This bie highlights the vaious spending pattens and tendsshown in those gues, as well as ndings om othe studies on college athletics.

3 The evidence pesented in this section on the ancillay benets o college spots is dawn om a ecent compehensive liteatue eview on thecosts/benets o college spots (see Getz & Siegied, 2010; the woking pape was ecently published in The Oxord Handbook o Sports Economics:Volume 1).

4 This phenomenon is oten dubbed the Flutie acto because Boston College epoted a suge in applications ollowing Doug Fluties winning Hail Maypass against the Univesity o Miami in a widely watched 1984 ootball game. Howeve, the enollment suge attibuted to this win was latediscounted; othe univesity initiatives, such as investments in campus acilities and eots to cultivate a national eputation, also contibuted tosignicant enollment inceases in the yeas beoe and ate the Flutie pass (Litan, Oszag, & Oszag, 2003; McDonald, 2003).

5 One o the moe caeully done studies shows an application incease om success in basketball, paticulaly at pivate institutions, with highe levelso success geneating lage inceases in applications (Pope & Pope, 2009, as epoted in Getz & Siegied, 2010).


3/16

Abot th Data

Th g and tabl in thi bi w povidd by th Knight Commiion on Intcollgiat Athltic;

thy incld only pblic collg and niviti that a NCAA Diviion I mmb.* Athltic dpatmnt

a th oganizd into th NCAA bdiviion bad on th cop o thi ootball pogam: (1) Bs

ootball Bowl sbdiviion (omly Diviion I-A), th mot comptitiv diviion wh tam vi o a pot in

th ootball bowl gam; th a 120 chool in thi bdiviion, and 97 pblic intittion w incldd

in thi analyi.

(2) Csootball Championhip sbdiviion (omly Diviion I-AA), wh ootball tampaticipat in a playo championhip; th a 120 chool in thi bdiviion, and 67 pblic intittion

w incldd in th analyi. (3) DI-NDiviion I, No ootball (omly Diviion I-AAA), which incld

97 chool withot a ootball pogam; 38 pblic intittion w incldd in th analyi. (s th Appndix

o a lit o th collg and niviti incldd in th analyi.)

Data on athltic pnding and vn a diclt to tack ing common dal high dcation data

t. Intad, th athltic nanc data in thi tdy w dawn om pot bmittd to th NCAA that

w bqntly compild by jonalit at USA Today; th data incld all intcollgiat athltic

pogam (intamal and clb pot a xcldd). Athltic xpn incld, o xampl, compnation

o coach and ta, gam xpn, citing cot, and tdnt cholahip. rvn incld tho

that a gnatd by th pogam (.g., tickt al, donation, advtiing, and connc ditibtionom paticipation in bowl/tonamnt and connc tlviion agmnt) and tho allocatd by th

intittion (.g., intittional ppot, tat ppot, and tdnt ). Athltic data a hown p athlt,

with mltipot athlt contd only onc.

Acadmic pnding timat com om a pcial tablation o th Dlta Cot Pojct Intgatd

Potconday edcation Data sytm (IPeDs) Databa, which wa contctd om pblicly availabl

data that high dcation intittion a qid to pot to th u.s. Dpatmnt o edcation thogh

th IPeDs vy. Acadmic pnding incld only dict and indict cot latd to dcating tdnt;

pnding latd to oth nivity activiti o vic (.g., ponod ach, pblic vic, hopital)

i xcldd. Acadmic data a hown p Te tdnt.

All potd data a mdian val xcpt o th ditibtion o vn/pnding, which fct th

popotion o total pnding. inancial data a hown in cnt dolla and hav not bn adjtd

o infation.

* The NCAA collects athletic data om public and pivate membe institutions but, because o condentiality ageements, eleases onlyaggegate statistics. Jounalists om USA Todaysubmit annual public ecod equests to each public NCAA Division I college andunivesity to obtain the athletic epots they submit to the NCAA; pivate institutions ae exempt om this disclosue equiement andtheeoe ae excluded om the analyses in this epot.

In 2010, thee wee 337 Division I schools; appoximately two thids wee public institutions (about 85 pecent o the 120 FBS institutionsae public compaed to about 65 pecent o 120 FCS and one hal o 97 DI-NF institutions [authos analysis using USA Todays NCAA

Athletic Finance Database and Fulks, 2011]). NCAA Division I schools must oe at least 14 spots, play a minimum numbe o games against othe Division I opponents, and meet

established nancial aid minimums/maximums. Schools may choose a subdivision based on the scope o thei ootball pogam. The FBS andFCS subdivisions must meet highe paticipation, scheduling, and nancial aid equiements, while the FBS also has attendance equiements(Fulks, 2011).

All highe education institutions that paticipate in Title IV nancial aid pogams ae equied to epot nancial and othe inomation to theedeal Integated Postseconday Education Data System (IPEDS). Although athletic data ae included, they ae captued in boad epotingcategoies that ae not useul o detailed analysis. Institutions may include expenditues o intecollegiate athletics as pat o studentsevices (which also include sevices such as counseling, admissions, and the egista), but lage athletic pogams ae usuallyclassied as auxiliay entepises (along with bookstoes, health clinics, and dining halls). In eithe case, athletic spending is combinedwith othe expenses included in these boad expenditue categoies.

The measue o academic spending used thoughout this bie is commonly known as education and elated o E&r spending; itcaptues expenditues elated to the academic mission o highe education and excludes spending on the eseach and public sevicemissions. E&r spending includes instuction, student sevices, and a po-ata shae o spending on academic suppot, institutional suppot,and opeations and maintenance.


4/16

public institutions that paticipate in NCAA Division I

pogams, compaed to simila institutions that do not;

it appeas that visibilitynot necessaily successis

the undelying acto (Humpheys, 2006, as epoted in

Getz & Siegied, 2010). Big-time college athletics also

ae oten thought to povide a egional economic boost,

with spectatos booking hotel ooms and lling local

estauants. But evenues lost om esidents who

avoid shopping and dining out on game day can osetthose bought in om visitos (Coates & Depken,

2008, as epoted in Getz & Siegied, 2010).

Fo student spectatos, college spots oe a common

allying oppotunity and oten povide a sense o

community. And o student athletes themselves, spots

clealy povide an oppotunity to lean about skill

development, teamwok, competition, and, o couse,

healthy execise habits. But even small pogams can

impat many o these same benets, especially with

athletic costs becoming a gowing concen.

Tends in Athletic andAcademic SpendingAthletics ae big business on many college campuses.

Acoss the FBS institutions, the typical univesity spent

about $45 million on athletics in FY 2010; othe

Division I schools spent close to $10 million. On the

whole, colleges and univesities invested signicantly

moe in academics than athletics; athletic budgetstypically epesented om 5 pecent to 11 pecent o

total academic spending in each subdivision.6 But once

adjusted o the numbe o students and student

athletes, collegiate athletic pogams clealy spend

much moe pe athlete than univesities spend to

educate the aveage student.

The dieence between academic and athletic spending

among Division I colleges and univesities is stiking.

Each o the thee subdivisions spent similaly on

academics, anging om oughly $11,800 to $13,600

pe FTE student in 2010 (see Figue 1 on page 5).

But among FBS institutions, the median athletic

expenditue pe athlete was about $92,000, moe

than six times the pe-student academic expense.

Acoss the FBS and DI-NF institutions, pe-capita

spending was thee times highe on athletics as on

academics, with athletic spending pe athlete upwads

o $36,000 in each subdivision.

Despite aleady geneous budgets, athletic spendinginceased apidly acoss all subdivisions between 2005

and 2010 and, by compaison, even outpaced the

athe steep incease in tuitions at public ou-yea

institutions duing this time.7 Athletic costs inceased

astest at the high-spending FBS schools, ising by

about 50 pecent in just ve yeas (unadjusted o

infation); this tanslates into athletic depatments

spending an additional $6,200 pe athlete pe yea

since 2005. Academic spending, in contast, gew

less than hal as ast, inceasing by only about

$500 pe FTE student pe yea duing the same

time. Although athletic spending at non-FBS

Division I schools gew slightly slowe, it also a

outpaced gowth in academic spending.

Howeve, by 2010, many publ ic institutions wee

contending with the ateeects o the ecession.

resouces wee stained on many campuses as

enollments ticked up shaply and state unding

continued to eode. Gowth in academic spending pe

student slowed consideably in 2009 and 2010 (andwas steady o declining in infation-adjusted dollas).

Howeve, a simila slowdown in athletic spending was

evident only in the pospeous FBS subdivision, whee

spending pe athlete was lagely unchanged between

2009 and 2010. Spending continued to ise in the FCS

and DI-NF subdivisions, although the 2010 incease

was geneally smalle than inceases ealie in the

decade. While it is undestandable that these lage

pogamswhose evenues ae oten diven by oces

outside the univesitywould eel the pinch o the

ecession, the institutions themselves showed little

estaint in thei suppot o college athletics.

6 Spending at the median FBS institution is at the top o the ange. The NCAA estimates (including both public and pivate institutions) show medianathletic expenditues ae about 5 pecent ototal institutional budgets (Fulks, 2011, Table 2-7).

7 In-state tuition and ees at public ou-yea institutions inceased 38 pecent (unadjusted o infation) between 2005 and 2010 (College Boad, 2012,Table 2).


5/16

Athletic spending per athlete Athletic subsidy per athlete Academic spending per FTE student

$0

$20,000

$40,000

$60,000

$80,000

$100,000

$90,000

$70,000

$50,000

$30,000

$10,000

Note: Includes public institutions only.Athletic spendingincludes all athletic operating expenses averaged on a per-athlete basis.Athletic subsidyreects

the revenue reported by athletics from student fees, transfers from general fund sources, state appropriations, or other sources internal to the institution,

averaged on a per-athlete basis.Academic spendingreects the full cost of education, which includes spending for instruction, student ser vices, and

shared overhead costs for academic, institutional, and operations support averaged per full-time equivalent student.

Data Sources: USA Todays NCAA Athletics Finance Database; Delta Cost Project IPEDS Database (special tabulation); U.S. Department of Education

Ofce of Postsecondary Education, Equity in Athletics Database.

Source: Knight Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics, 2012.

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS) Current Dollars

MedianExpenditure

$0

$20,000

$40,000

$60,000

$80,000

$100,000

$90,000

$70,000

$50,000

$30,000

$10,000

MedianExpenditure

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Football Championship Subdivision (FCS) Current Dollars

$0

$20,000

$40,000

$60,000

$80,000

$100,000

$90,000

$70,000

$50,000

$30,000

$10,000

MedianExpenditure

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Division I, No Football (DI-NF) Current Dollars

$11,079 $11,691 $12,182 $13,349 $13,471 $13,628

$12,008 $13,019 $14,515$17,338 $18,389 $19,318

$60,727

$66,374

$78,027

$84,446$91,053 $91,936

51%

23%

61%

20052010

Percent Change

20052010Percent Change

20052010Percent Change

22%

42%

48%

39%

38%

11%

$28,131 $30,286$32,025

$34,954 $36,773$39,201

$21,500 $21,619 $23,299$25,892 $28,306

$29,601

$10,693 $11,203 $12,106 $12,855 $12,537 $11,861

$24,739 $27,594$30,450

$33,308$35,188 $36,665

$17,179 $19,491$19,508

$21,961 $23,084 $24,407

$9,644 $10,301 $10,702 $11,798 $11,790 $11,769

ig 1. Acadmic and Athltic spnding, 2005 to 2010 (Cnt Dolla)


6/16

A little undestood pat o collegiate athletics is the

nancial ole o univesities. Athletic subsidies ae

common acoss all Division I pogams, and a potion

o athletic budgets ae oten unded om othe

univesity esouces, student ees, o state

appopiations. Pe-athlete subsidies ae substantial

acoss Division I, with median subsidies anging om

nealy $20,000 to $30,000 pe athlete in eachsubdivisionexceeding the median oveall educational

spending pe student (see Figue 1 on page 5).

Although schools in the FBS have the highest pe-

athlete spending, they typically eceive the smallest

subsidies on a pe-athlete basis. Lage pe-athlete

subsidies wee obseved in the smalle FCS and DI-NF

pogams, which have moe limited access to othe

lage evenue steams. In each o the subdivisions,

subsidies ose nealy as ast as athletic spending

between 2005 and 2010, suggesting that institutions

themselves have contibuted to the ise in athletic

spending duing this time.

Athletic and AcademicSpending Within the FBS

Pehaps even moe eye-opening than the athletic

spending dieences among the thee subdivisions ae

the lage budget gaps among the 11 coneences within

the FBS subdivision (see Table 1). In each o the six

powe coneences that om the Bowl ChampionshipSeies (BCS)8Southeasten (SEC), Big 12, Pacic-10,9

Atlantic Coast (ACC), Big Ten, and Big Eastmedian

athletic spending pe athlete topped $100,000 in 2010.

The powe coneences spent at least one thid moe

(otentimes much moe) than the othe coneences.

In the well-nanced Southeasten Coneence, median

spending pe athlete is nealy ou times moe than that

o the Sun Belt Coneence, whee the typical membe

college spends less than $42,000 pe athlete. But

signicant dieences ae appaent even among the

powe coneences, with the Southeasten Coneence

spending 60 pecent moe than the most economical

BCS coneence (Big East).

8 Each o the BCS coneence champions eceives an automatic beth to a ootball bowl game.

9 The Pacic-10 eoganized in 2011 and became the Pacic-12.

Tabl 1. Acadmic and Athltic spnding by Diviion I sbdiviion and Bs Connc

Division I Subdivisions andFBS Coneences

Median Academic Spendingpe Student, 2010

Median Athletic Spending peAthlete, 2010

ratio o Median AthleticSpending pe Athlete toAcademic Spending pe

Student, 2010

Southeasten (SEC) $13,390 $163,931 12.2

Big 12 $13,988 $131,286 9.4

Pacic-10 $14,217 $102,121 7.2

FBS $13,628 $91,936 6.7

Atlantic Coast (ACC) $15,360 $103,384 6.7

Coneence USA $11,867 $76,181 6.4

Big Ten $19,225 $116,667 6.1

Big East $17,620 $102,032 5.8

Mountain West $13,690 $74,264 5.4

Westen Athletic (WAC) $11,789 $56,180 4.8

Sun Belt $10,012 $41,796 4.2

Mid-Ameican $13,069 $52,537 4.0

Division I, No Football $11,861 $39,201 3.3

FCS $11,769 $36,665 3.1

Note: Includes public institutions only. The Pacic-10 eoganized in 2011 and became the Pacic-12.

Data sources: USA Todays NCAA Athletics Finance Database; Delta Cost Poject IPEDS Database (special tabulation); U.S. Depatment o Education,Oce o Postseconday Education, Equity in Athletics Database.

Source: Knight Commission on Intecollegiate Athletics, 2012.


7/16

Much o the dieence in coneence spending is

elated to television contacts and coneence payouts,

which played a leading ole in the spate o coneence

ealignments that occued in 2011 and 2012.

Coneences with lage audiences ae able to negotiate

bigge boadcasting contacts (o ceate thei own

netwok, such as the Big Ten Network) because the

television netwoks can geneate moe advetising

evenue (Schlabach, 2010).

A bigge geogaphicootpint also can lend leveage in television contact

negotiations. Lage coneences also ae able to

geneate additional evenue by hosting a ootball

championship game, which is not pemitted in

coneences with ewe than 12 teams.

Acoss the FBS coneences, thee also ae substantial

dieences in the atio o pe-capita athletic to academic

spending. In most o the FBS coneences, median

athletic spending pe athlete is ou to seven times

geate than academic spending pe student. But lage

dispaities in athletic spending, athe than academic

spending, ae behind the dieences in these atios.

Although the powe coneences tend to spend moe

on academics, thei elative spending on athletics is

still much highe than othe coneences (see Table 1

on page 6). The atio o pe-capita athletic to academic

spending in the afuent Southeasten and Big 12

coneences a exceeds those obseved o

othe coneences.

Dividing the institutions within the FBS into ou

equal-sized goups (quatiles), based on total athleticspending, suggests that the ams ace oten alluded

to in univesity spending also extends to collegiate

athletics.10 In 2010, it appeas that the middle-tie

FBS pogams wee woking had to compete with the

top spendes in tems o pe-athlete spending. These

pogams (quatiles 2 and 3, 25th to 75th pecentiles)

inceased athletic spending aste than eithe the

lage o smalle depatments in the subdivision (see

Table 2). These midlevel FBS pogams also inceasingly

elied on institutional suppot to ty to close the

spending gap. While these midlevel institutions wee

aggessively tying to each the top tie, the bottom

quatile o institutions appeaed moe inclined to

accept thei less competitive position.

10 Fo each o the FBS spending quatiles, total athletic spending in 2010 was within the ollowing anges: Quatile 1$70 million to $130 million;Quatile 2$45 million to $70 million; Quatile 3$24 million to $45 million; Quatile 4$10 million to $24 million.

Tabl 2. Acadmic and Athltic spnding by Qatil

FBS Spending Quatile,2010

Median Academic Spendingpe Student, 2010

Median Athletic Spending peAthlete, 2010

ratio o Median AthleticSpending pe Athlete toAcademic Spending pe

Student, 2010

Quatile 1 (high) $16,500 $149,711 9.1Quatile 2 $14,684 $108,911 7.4

FBS Median $13,628 $91,936 6.7

Quatile 3 $12,129 $77,535 6.4

Quatile 4 (low) $11,706 $51,532 4.4

Pecent Change, 2005 to 2010 (Cuent Dollas)

Median Academic Spendingpe Student

Median Athletic Spending peAthlete

Median Athletic Subsidype Athlete

Quatile 1 (high) 30.4% 44.7% 16.5%

Quatile 2 17.2% 48.4% 43.1%

Quatile 3 21.9% 59.5% 57.8%

Quatile 4 (low) 19.2% 41.5% 28.0%

Note: Includes public institutions only. Pecent change does not include an infation adjustment. FBS institutions wee oganized into quatiles basedtotal athletic spending.

Data sources: USA Todays NCAA Athletics Finance Database; Delta Cost Poject IPEDS Database (special tabulation); U.S. Depatment o Education,Oce o Postseconday Education, Equity in Athletics Database.

Source: Knight Commission on Intecollegiate Athletics, 2012.


8/16

What Is the Money Buying?

Despite lage dispaities in the oveall size o athletic

budgets acoss the Division I subdivisions, spending

pattens eveal moe similaities than dieences.

Compensation and benets o athletic depatment

sta ae the lagest expense acoss all subdivisions

and consumed about one thid o athletic budgets (see

Figue 2). Coaching sta salaies accounted o hal omoe o that expense (o close to one th o the

oveall budget). Athletic depatments also spent a

simila popotion o thei budgets on game expenses/

tavel (10 pecent) and ecuiting (2 pecent).

Subdivision dieences ae appaent, howeve, in

spending on student aid and acilities/equipment.11

The smalle FCS and DI-NF pogams spent much moe

o thei budgets on student aid than the FBS pogams

(25 pecent vesus 14 pecent). Instead, FBS schools,

which oten have lage, newe acilities, devoted slightly

moe o thei budgets to acilities/equipment and othe

expenses such as undaising and maketing eots.

Looking moe closely within the vaied FBS subdivision,

it is evident that those pogams with the smallest

athletic budgets (quatile 4) have spending pattens

that closely efect the smalle FCS and DI-NF

pogams. Also, simila to compaisons acoss the

boade subdivisions, the lagest spending dieences

within the FBS subdivision elate to student aid,

acilities, and othe miscellaneous expenses.

Although costs have isen in all expenditue categoies

since 2005, inceases in acilities and equipment have

consumed a lage piece o the spending pie ove time

acoss all subdivisions; the compensation shae o thebudget also inceased at FBS institutions while the

student aid shae ose at FCS institutions. Osetting

these inceases wee smalle shaes going to student

aid (except in FCS) and othe expenses.

How Ae AthleticBudgets Funded?

Despite commonalities in spending, athletic

depatments nance thei pogams using vey

dieent evenue souces. The FBS pogams ae

moe likely to und lage potions o thei budgets

om athletic opeations. In 2010, moe than 80

pecent o the budget at the typical FBS college o

univesity came om geneated evenues, such as

ticket sales, coneence payouts, and donations (see

Figue 3). In contast, moe than 70 pecent o athletic

Game expensesand travel

Guarantees

Recruiting

Other expenses

Compensation

Athletic student aid

Facilities andequipment

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%90%

70%

50%

30%

10%

Spending Quartiles (spending in millions)

FCSTotal

27.0%

32.8%

10.0%

11.3%

1.6% 0.7%

16.6%

Division I,No Football

Total

23.8%

36.8%

10.6%

11.7%

1.5% 0.6%

14.9%

FBSTotal

14.4%

34.6%

11.1%

15.3%

1.5%2.9%

20.0%

FBSQ1

$70130

10.6%

33.7%

11.0%

17.1%

1.4% 2.8%

23.3%

FBSQ2

$4570

14.6%

36.4%

11.2%

13.8%

1.6%3.4%

19.0%

FBSQ3

$2445

18.0%

35.4%

10.8%

15.3%

1.7% 2.8%

15.7%

FBSQ4

$1024

25.5%

31.9%

11.7%

11.9%

1.7% 2.4%

14.7%

Note: Includes public institutions only. FBS institutions were organized into quartiles based on total athletic spending. Guarantees are payments to

visiting institutions for participation in home games. Other expenses includes medical, marketing, dues, spirit groups, sports camps, and other expenses.

Data Source: USA Todays NCAA Athletics Finance Database.


ig 2. Wh th Mony Go: Ditibtion o Athltic expndit o Diviion I Collg, by sbdiviion, 2010

11 Facility costs exclude capital expenditues but include debt sevice (Fulks, 2011).


9/16

budgets in the smalle FCS and DI-NF pogams came

om evenues allocated by the univesity; this athletic

subsidy includes money om student ees, institutional

suppot, and govenment appopiations.

The lagest evenue souce o FBS schools is ticket

sales, which geneated nealy 25 pecent o FBS

evenues in 2010. With lage stadiums and NCAA

attendance equiements, these pogams dependheavily on thei extensive egional an base o suppot.

Again, thee ae signicant dieences among FBS

institutions, with the smalle FBS pogams opeating

moe like the FCS subdivision than the lage, highe

spending pogams. Among lowe spending schools in

the FBS (quatiles 3 and 4), ticket sales epesented

less than 20 pecent o total evenue and institutional

subsidies compised about 40 pecent to 60 pecent

o thei budget.

In addition to ticket sales, the top hal o FBS pogams

also ae heavily eliant on donations om alumni and

othe suppotes, who povided almost as much

evenue as was geneated om ticket sales. NCAA

and coneences paymentsom television ageements

and paticipation in bowl games and tounaments

geneated appoximately 22 pecent o evenue o

the top pogams.

Newly negotiated television contacts ae expected to

signicantly boost athletic evenues o the top pogamsin coming yeas, ceating even moe dispaity in college

athletics. Fo the top ve coneences (ACC, Big 10, Big

12, Pacic-12, and SEC), cuent media contacts ae

expected to geneate moe than $1 billion pe yea, with

aveage coneence evenues anging om $12 million

to $20 million pe school pe yea.12 College spots ae

big business, and these contacts exceed the annual

media contacts o Majo League Baseball, the

National Hockey League, and the National Basketball

Association.13 But even with lucative outside unding

souces, athletic pogams have not become moe

sel-sucient; since 2005, all subdivisions have

12 Estimates compiled by the Knight Commission on Intecollegiate Athletics (2011) and Weave (2011).

13 The National Basketball Association and Majo League Baseball national media contacts povide about $900 million in evenue annually, althoughmany baseball teams also eceive sizable evenues om local television contacts. The National Hockey League ecently signed a new deal that willpovide about $200 million a yea in television evenue. The National Football League has the most lucative contact, which cuently povidesnealy $2 billion in annual evenue and will incease to moe than $3 billion by 2022. Sources: Associated Pess (2007, 2011); ESPN News

Sevices (2011); Tomasch (2011).

Guarantees

Corporate sponsorship,advertising, licensing

Donor contributions

Other revenue

Ticket sales

Institutional/government support

Student fees

NCAA/conferencedistributions andtelevision agreements

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

90%

70%

50%

30%

10%


Subsidy

(Institutonal Funds)

FCSTotal

Division I,No Football

Total

FBSTotal

Generated Revenues

Note: Includes public institutions only. FBS institutions were organized into quartiles based on total athletic spending. Guarantees are revenues received

for participation in away games. Other revenue includes concessions, endowments, sports camps, third-party compensation, and other revenue.



29.3%

41.2%5.9%4.8%

7.6%

42.2%

35.4%

6.9%

7.6%

10.1%

23.7%

19.4%

22.3%

7.2%

7.8%

1.9%

28.5%

21.8%

28.1%

7.8%

9.1%

9.3%

25.4%

21.7%

21.4%

8.1%

7.5%

16.4%

23.8%

16.0%

15.0%

13.4%

6.2%

6.7%

31.0%

31.8%

6.3%

7.5%

6.8%

9.8%

0.8%

2.0%

1.8%

2.5%

4.2%

4.1%3.5%

1.9% 4.8%

3.3% 2.8%3.9%

2.1%3.1%

2.8%

3.5%

FBSQ1

$70130

FBSQ2

$4570

FBSQ3

$2445

FBSQ4

$1024

ig 3. Wh th Mony Com om: soc o Athltic Bdgt rvn o Diviion I Collg,

by sbdiviion, 2010


10/16

inceasingly elied on institutional suppot, although

FBS institutions depended moe heavily on evenue

inceases om dono contibutions, licensing, and

NCAA payouts.

Ae Athletics Sel-Suppoting?

It is appaent that most athletic depatments depend

on subsidies om univesities and student ees to undthei pogams. Even among the lagest FBS pogams,

student ees and institutional subsidies typically

povided between 4 pecent and 14 pecent o total

athletic evenues (see Figue 3 on page 9). And without

access to lucative television contacts and lage

stadiums with sizable ticket sales evenue, the

budgets at smalle FCS and DI-NF pogams ae heavily

subsidized, although FCS pogams ae moe likely to

ely on institutional suppot, while DI-NF schools ely

on student ees to und much o thei budget.

In act, only the pogams at the vey top o the FBS

subdivision geneate moe money om athletics than

they spend. Fewe than one in ou o the 97 public

FBS athletic depatments geneated moe money than

they spent in any given yea between 2005 and 2010

(and almost none o the emaining Division I pogams

wee potable). Even so, about two thids o these

potable FBS depatments still eceived athletic

subsidies in 2010. While it is tue that the taditional

money-geneating spots ae moe likely to cove thei

own expenses, moe than 40 pecent o FBS ootball

and mens basketball pogams wee unable to ully

suppot thei own pogams in 2010; in the emaining

Division I schools, only a handul o these pogamswee sel-suppoting.14

The median subsidy at FBS institutions appeas simila

to othe Division I schools, anging om $7.7 million to

$8.5 million (see Figue 4). The smallest FBS pogams,

howeve, eceived the lagest subsidies among all

Division I schools. In the bottom hal o the FBS

subdivision, median subsidies wee between $11

million and $14 millionabout two to ou times as

lage as those in the top hal o the FBS subdivision,

whee the typical subsidy was appoximately between

$3 million and $6 million.

On a pe-athlete basis, howeve, FBS subsidies ae lowe

oveall (see Figue 1 on page 5), athough subsidies at

the less afuent FBS athletic depatments ae simila to

14 These gues include both public and pivate institutions (Fulks, 2011, Tables 3.6, 4.6, and 5.6).

Athleticexpenses

Athleticsubsidy

Generatedrevenue

$0

$20

$40

$60

$80

$100

$90

$70

$50

$30

$10


FCS

Total

Division I,

No FootballTotal

FBS

Total

Note: Includes public institutions only. FBS institutions were organized into quartiles based on total athletic spending. Athletic subsidy includes revenue

reported by athletics from student fees, transfers from general fund sources, state appropriations, or other sources internal to the institution. Revenues

may not equal expenses because median values are shown.



Revenues Expenses Revenues Expenses Revenues Expenses Revenues Expenses Revenues Expenses Revenues Expenses Revenues Expenses

Median generated revenues and athletic subsidy vs. median expenditures (in millions), 2010

MedianExpenditure

$3.2 Median amount funded by the institution

$8.5

$6.2

$13.6

$11.4

$8.4$7.7

FBS

Q1$70130

FBS

Q2$4570

FBS

Q3$2445

FBS

Q4$1024

ig 4. Majoity o Collg and univiti rqi Intittional nd to Balanc Athltic Bdgt


11/16

the median subsidy pe athlete in the FCS and DI-NF

subdivisions. Taken togethe, these pattens suggest

that the top-spending FBS pogams ae moe likely to

be potable and appea to pose less o a nancial

buden on thei univesities than othe FBS and Division

I athletic depatments; howeve, they still ae likely to

collect an athletic subsidy om thei institution.

ConclusionThe belie that college spots ae a nancial boon

to colleges and univesities is geneally misguided.

Although some big-time college spots athletic

depatments ae sel-suppotingand some specic

spots may be potable enough to help suppot othe

campus spots pogamsmoe oten than not, the

colleges and univesities ae subsidizing athletics,

not the othe way aound. In act, student ees o

institutional subsidies (coming om tuition, state

appopiations, endowments, o othe evenue-

geneating activities on campus) oten suppot even

the lagest NCAA Division I college spots pogams.

recent tends suggest that the most signicant

economic slowdown in ecent yeas has done little to

evese the gowth in athletic spending, paticulaly in

those divisions heavily dependent on institutional

suppot. The gowth in athletic spending is not

expected to abate anytime soon, as media contacts

uel moe money into the system and the have nots

continue to chase the haves. Not only does athletic

spending pe athlete a exceed academic spendingpe student, it is also gowing about twice as ast.

College spots ae cetainly valuable in that they allow

students to pusue healthy, competitive activities that

they ae passionate about. But big-time college spots

pogams oten seem to seve as advetising vehicles,

boosting exposue and pestige o those univesities

that ae successul. While a winning team may

geneate some new students and donos, the pice

o paticipating in Division I athletics is high. And

dispaities in academic and athletic spending suggest

that paticipating public colleges and univesities

eexamine thei game plans.

reeencesAndeson, M. (2012). The benefts o college athletic success: An application o the propensity score design with

instrumental variables (NBEr Woking Pape No. 18196). Cambidge, MA: National Bueau o Economic reseach.

Associated Pess. (2007, June 27). NBA extends TV deals with ESPN/ABC & TNT. ESPN.com. retieved om

http://spots.espn.go.com/espn/wie?section=nba&id=2918075

Associated Pess. (2011, Decembe 14). NFL enews television deals. ESPN.com. retieved om http://spots.

espn.go.com/nf/stoy/_/id/7353238/nf-e-ups-tv-pacts-expand-thusday-schedule

Coates, D., & Depken, C. O. (2008). Do college ootball games pay or themselves? The impact o college ootball

games on local sales tax revenue (SSrN Woking Pape). New Yok: Social Science reseach Netwok.

retieved om http://ssn.com/abstact=1140271

College Boad. (2012). Trends in college pricing 2012 [Speadsheet]. New Yok: Autho. retieved om

http://tends.collegeboad.og/sites/deault/les/college-picing-2012-souce-data_0.xlsx

Desoches, D. M., & Kishstein, r. J. (2012). College spending in a turbulent decade: Findings rom the Delta Cost

Project. Washington, DC: Delta Cost Poject at Ameican Institutes o reseach. retieved om http://www.

deltacostpoject.og/analyses/delta_epots.asp

ESPN News Sevices. (2011, Apil 19). NHL to emain with NBC, Vesus. ESPN.com. retieved om http://spots.

espn.go.com/nhl/news/stoy?id=6389351

Fulks, D. L. (2011). Revenues and expenses, 20042010: NCAA Division I intercollegiate athletics programs report.

Indianapolis, IN: NCAA. retieved om http://www.ncaapublications.com/poductdownloads/2010revExp.pd
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/wire?section=nba&id=2918075http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/7353238/nfl-re-ups-tv-pacts-expand-thursday-schedulehttp://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/7353238/nfl-re-ups-tv-pacts-expand-thursday-schedulehttp://ssrn.com/abstract%3D1140271http://trends.collegeboard.org/sites/default/files/college-pricing-2012-source-data_0.xlsxhttp://www.deltacostproject.org/analyses/delta_reports.asphttp://www.deltacostproject.org/analyses/delta_reports.asphttp://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/news/story?id=6389351http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/news/story?id=6389351http://www.ncaapublications.com/productdownloads/2010RevExp.pdfhttp://www.ncaapublications.com/productdownloads/2010RevExp.pdfhttp://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/news/story?id=6389351http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/news/story?id=6389351http://www.deltacostproject.org/analyses/delta_reports.asphttp://www.deltacostproject.org/analyses/delta_reports.asphttp://trends.collegeboard.org/sites/default/files/college-pricing-2012-source-data_0.xlsxhttp://ssrn.com/abstract%3D1140271http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/7353238/nfl-re-ups-tv-pacts-expand-thursday-schedulehttp://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/7353238/nfl-re-ups-tv-pacts-expand-thursday-schedulehttp://sports.espn.go.com/espn/wire?section=nba&id=2918075


12/16

Getz, M., & Siegied, J. J. (2010). What does intercollegiate athletics do to or or colleges and universities? (Woking

Pape). Nashville, TN: Vandebilt Univesity, Depatment o Economics. retieved om http://www.accessecon.

com/pubs/VUECON/vu10-w05.pd

Humpheys, B. r. (2006). The elationship between big-time college ootball and state appopiations o highe

education. International Journal o Sports Finance, 1(2), 119128.

Kiwan, W. E., & Tune, r. G. (2010, Septembe/Octobe). Changing the game: Athletics spending in an academic

context. Trusteeship, 18(5), 813. retieved om http://agb.og/tusteeship/2010/septembeoctobe/

changing-game-athletics-spending-academic-context

Knight Commission on Intecollegiate Athletics. (2010). Restoring the balance: Dollars, values, and the uture

o college sports. Univesity Pak, PA: Autho. retieved om http://www.knightcommission.og/images/

estoingbalance/KCIA_repot_F.pd

Knight Commission on Intecollegiate Athletics. (2011). Media contracts or fve major conerences in place by

or beore 201213. Univesity Pak, PA: Autho. retieved om http://www.knightcommission.og/images/

pds/2011_tv_contact_big5.pd

Knight Commission on Intecollegiate Athletics. (2012, Decembe 3). Updated fnancial data to the 2010 Knight

Commission report, Restoring the Balance [Website]. retieved om http://www.knightcommission.og/

esouces/pess-oom/787-decembe-3-updated-nancial-data

Litan, r. E., Oszag, J. M., & Oszag, P. r. (2003). The empirical eects o collegiate athletics: An interim report.

Belmont, CA: Sebago Associates.

McDonald, B. (2003, Sping). Phenomenology: The Flutie acto is now eceived wisdom. But is it tue?

Boston College Magazine. retieved om http://bcm.bc.edu/issues/sping_2003/ll_phenomenology.html

Pope, D. G., & Pope, J. C. (2009). The impact o college spots success on the quantity and quality o student

applications. Southern Economic Journal, 75(3), 750780.

Schlabach, M. (2010, June 9). Expansion 101: Whats at stake? ESPN.com. retieved om http://spots.espn.

go.com/nc/columns/stoy?columnist=schlabach_mak&id=5268212

Tomasch, P. (2011, Octobe 31). Baseball eyes new $1 billion TV contact in o-season. Fox news.com. retieved

om http://www.oxnews.com/spots/2011/10/31/baseball-eyes-new-1-billion-tv-contact-in-o-season/

Weave, K. (2011, Januay/Febuay). A game change: Paying o big-time college spots. Change. retieved om

http://www.changemag.og/Achives/Back%20Issues/2011/Januay-Febuay%202011/game-change-ull.html
http://www.accessecon.com/pubs/VUECON/vu10-w05.pdfhttp://www.accessecon.com/pubs/VUECON/vu10-w05.pdfhttp://agb.org/trusteeship/2010/septemberoctober/changing-game-athletics-spending-academic-contexthttp://agb.org/trusteeship/2010/septemberoctober/changing-game-athletics-spending-academic-contexthttp://www.knightcommission.org/images/restoringbalance/KCIA_Report_F.pdfhttp://www.knightcommission.org/images/restoringbalance/KCIA_Report_F.pdfhttp://www.knightcommission.org/images/pdfs/2011_tv_contract_big5.pdfhttp://www.knightcommission.org/images/pdfs/2011_tv_contract_big5.pdfhttp://www.knightcommission.org/resources/press-room/787-december-3-updated-financial-datahttp://www.knightcommission.org/resources/press-room/787-december-3-updated-financial-datahttp://bcm.bc.edu/issues/spring_2003/ll_phenomenology.html%20http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/columns/story?columnist=schlabach_mark&id=5268212http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/columns/story?columnist=schlabach_mark&id=5268212http://www.foxnews.com/sports/2011/10/31/baseball-eyes-new-1-billion-tv-contract-in-off-season/http://www.changemag.org/Archives/Back%20Issues/2011/January-February%202011/game-change-full.htmlhttp://www.changemag.org/Archives/Back%20Issues/2011/January-February%202011/game-change-full.htmlhttp://www.foxnews.com/sports/2011/10/31/baseball-eyes-new-1-billion-tv-contract-in-off-season/http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/columns/story?columnist=schlabach_mark&id=5268212http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/columns/story?columnist=schlabach_mark&id=5268212http://bcm.bc.edu/issues/spring_2003/ll_phenomenology.html%20http://www.knightcommission.org/resources/press-room/787-december-3-updated-financial-datahttp://www.knightcommission.org/resources/press-room/787-december-3-updated-financial-datahttp://www.knightcommission.org/images/pdfs/2011_tv_contract_big5.pdfhttp://www.knightcommission.org/images/pdfs/2011_tv_contract_big5.pdfhttp://www.knightcommission.org/images/restoringbalance/KCIA_Report_F.pdfhttp://www.knightcommission.org/images/restoringbalance/KCIA_Report_F.pdfhttp://agb.org/trusteeship/2010/septemberoctober/changing-game-athletics-spending-academic-contexthttp://agb.org/trusteeship/2010/septemberoctober/changing-game-athletics-spending-academic-contexthttp://www.accessecon.com/pubs/VUECON/vu10-w05.pdfhttp://www.accessecon.com/pubs/VUECON/vu10-w05.pdf


13/16

Appendix

Pblic Diviion I Intittion Incldd in th Analyi sampl

* excluded rom all analyses because o incomplete data

** excluded rom per-capita analyses because o missing/erroneous athlete count data

Football Bowl Subdivision (98 Institutions) Conerence in 2010

Arizona State University Pacifc-10 Conerence

Arkansas State University Sun Belt Conerence

Auburn University Southeastern Conerence

Ball State University Mid-American Conerence

Boise State University Western Athletic Conerence

Bowling Green State University Mid-American Conerence

Caliornia State UniversityFresno Western Athletic Conerence

Central Michigan University Mid-American Conerence

Clemson University Atlantic Coast Conerence

Colorado State University Mountain West Conerence

East Carolina University Conerence USA

Eastern Michigan University Mid-American ConerenceFlorida Atlantic University Sun Belt Conerence

Florida International University Sun Belt Conerence

Florida State University Atlantic Coast Conerence

Georgia Institute o Technology Atlantic Coast Conerence

Indiana UniversityBloomington Big Ten Conerence

Iowa State University Big 12 Conerence

Kansas State University Big 12 Conerence

Kent State UniversityKent Campus Mid-American Conerence

Louisiana State Universi ty and Agriculture and Mechanical Col lege Southeastern Conerence

Louisiana Tech University Western Athletic Conerence

Marshall University Conerence USA

Miami UniversityOxord Mid-American Conerence

Michigan State University Big Ten Conerence

Middle Tennessee State University Sun Belt Conerence

Mississippi State University Southeastern Conerence

New Mexico State University Western Athletic Conerence

North Carolina State University at Raleigh Atlantic Coast Conerence

Northern Illinois University Mid-American Conerence

Ohio State University Big Ten Conerence

Ohio University Mid-American Conerence

Oklahoma State University Big 12 Conerence

Oregon State University Pacifc-10 Conerence

Penn State University* Big Ten Conerence

Purdue University Big Ten Conerence

Rutgers UniversityNew Brunswick Big East Conerence

San Diego State University Mountain West Conerence

San Jose State University Western Athletic Conerence

Texas A&M University Big 12 Conerence

Texas Tech University Big 12 Conerence

The University o Alabama Southeastern Conerence

The University o Tennessee Southeastern Conerence


14/16


The University o Texas at Austin Big 12 Conerence

The University o Texas at El Paso Conerence USA

Troy University Sun Belt Conerence

University at Bualo Mid-American Conerence

University o Akron Mid-American Conerence

University o Alabama at Birmingham Conerence USA

University o Arizona Pacifc-10 Conerence

University o Arkansas Southeastern Conerence

University o CaliorniaBerkeley Pacifc-10 Conerence

University o CaliorniaLos Angeles Pacifc-10 Conerence

University o Central Florida Conerence USA

University o Cincinnati Big East Conerence

University o Colorado at Boulder Big 12 Conerence

University o Connecticut Big East Conerence

University o Florida Southeastern Conerence

University o Georgia Southeastern Conerence

University o Hawaii at Manoa Western Athletic Conerence

University o Houston Conerence USA

University o Idaho Western Athletic Conerence

University o Illinois at UrbanaChampaign Big Ten Conerence

University o Iowa Big Ten Conerence

University o Kansas Big 12 Conerence

University o Kentucky Southeastern Conerence

University o Louisiana at Laayette Sun Belt Conerence

University o LouisianaMonroe Sun Belt Conerence

University o Louisville Big East Conerence

University o MarylandCollege Park Atlantic Coast Conerence

University o Memphis Conerence USA

University o MichiganAnn Arbor Big Ten Conerence

University o MinnesotaTwin Cities Big Ten Conerence

University o Mississippi Southeastern Conerence

University o MissouriColumbia Big 12 Conerence

University o NebraskaLincoln Big 12 Conerence

University o NevadaLas Vegas Mountain West Conerence

University o NevadaReno Western Athletic Conerence

University o New Mexico Mountain West Conerence

University o North Carolina at Chapel Hill Atlantic Coast Conerence

University o North Texas Sun Belt Conerence

University o OklahomaNorman Campus Big 12 Conerence

University o Oregon Pacifc-10 Conerence

University o South CarolinaColumbia Southeastern Conerence

University o South Florida Big East Conerence

University o Southern Mississippi Conerence USA

University o Toledo Mid-American Conerence

University o Utah Mountain West Conerence

University o Virginia Atlantic Coast Conerence

University o WashingtonSeattle Campus Pacifc-10 Conerence

University o WisconsinMadison Big Ten Conerence

University o Wyoming Mountain West Conerence

Utah State University Western Athletic Conerence

Continued


15/16


Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University Atlantic Coast Conerence

Washington State University Pacifc-10 Conerence

West Virginia University Big East Conerence

Western Kentucky University Sun Belt Conerence

Western Michigan University Mid-American Conerence

Football Championship Subdivision (77 Public Institutions)* excluded rom all analyses because o incomplete data (or change in division)


Alabama A&M University

Alabama State University

Alcorn State University*

Appalachian State University

Austin Peay State University

Caliornia Polytechnic State UniversitySan Luis Obispo

Caliornia State UniversitySacramento

Central Connecticut State University

Citadel Military College o South Carolina

Coastal Carolina University

College o William and Mary

Delaware State University

Eastern Illinois University

Eastern Kentucky University

Eastern Washington University

Florida Agricultural and Mechanical University

Georgia Southern University

Grambling State University**

Idaho State UniversityIllinois State University

Indiana State University

Jackson State University**

Jacksonville State University*

James Madison University

McNeese State University**

Mississippi Valley State University**

Missouri State University

Montana State University

Morehead State University

Morgan State University**

Murray State University

Nicholls State University*

Norolk State University**

North Carolina A&T State University

North Carolina Central*

North Dakota State University

Northern Arizona University

Northwestern State University o Louisiana*

Old Dominion University

Portland State University

Prairie View A&M University

Sam Houston State University

Savannah State University*

South Carolina State University

South Dakota State University

Southeast Missouri State University*

Southeastern Louisiana University

Southern Illinois UniversityCarbondale

Southern University and A&M College

Southern Utah University

Stephen F. Austin State University

Stony Brook University

SUNY at Albany

Tennessee State University**

Tennessee Technological University

Texas Southern University

Texas State UniversitySan Marcos

The University o MontanaThe University o Tennessee at Chattanooga

The University o TennesseeMartin

Towson University

University o Arkansas at Pine Blu**

University o CaliorniaDavis

University o Delaware

University o Maine

University o MassachusettsAmherst

University o New Hampshire

University o North Dakota*

University o Northern Colorado

University o Northern Iowa

University o Rhode Island

University o South Dakota*

Virginia Military Institute**

Weber State University

Western Carolina University

Western Illinois University*

Youngstown State University

Continued


16/16

Division I, No Football (50 Public Institutions)

* excluded rom all analyses because o incomplete data (or change in division)


Caliornia State UniversityBakersfeld*

Caliornia State UniversityFullerton

Caliornia State UniversityLong Beach

Caliornia State UniversityNorthridge

Chicago State University*

Cleveland State University

College o Charleston*

Coppin State University

East Tennessee State University

Florida Gul Coast University*

George Mason University*

Georgia State University

Indiana University/Purdue UniversityFort Wayne

Indiana University/Purdue UniversityIndianapolis*

Kennesaw State University

Lamar University

Longwood University

New Jersey Institute o Technology**

Oakland University

Radord University

Southern Illinois UniversityEdwardsville*

SUNY at Binghamton

Texas A&M UniversityCorpus Christi

The University o Texas at Arlington

The University o Texas at San Antonio

The University o TexasPan American

University o Arkansas at Little Rock*

University o CaliorniaIrvine

University o CaliorniaRiverside

University o CaliorniaSanta Barbara

University o Illinois at Chicago*

University o MarylandEastern Shore

University o Mar ylandBaltimore County

University o MissouriKansas City

University o New Orleans**

University o North Carolina at Asheville

University o North Carolina at Charlotte

University o North Carolina at Greensboro

University o North CarolinaWilmington

University o North Florida*

University o South Alabama

University o South Carolina Upstate*

University o Vermont

University o WisconsinGreen Bay*

University o WisconsinMilwaukee

Utah Valley University

Virginia Commonwealth University

Wichita State University

Winthrop University

Wright State University

N t I tit ti t li t d i d t il bl

1000 Thomas Jeeson Steet NW

Washington, DC 20007

202.403.5410

www deltacostproject org 3326 01/13

About the AuthoDonna M. Desoches is a pincipal eseache atAmeican Institutes o reseach and woks withthe Delta Cost Poject. She can be eached at

[email protected].

About the Delta Cost PojectThe Delta Cost Poject at Ameican Institutes o

reseach povides data and tools to help highe

education administatos and policymakes impove

college aodability by contolling institutional costs

and inceasing poductivity. The wok is animated

by the belie that college costs can be contained

without sacicing access o educational qualitythough bette use o data to inom stategic

decision making.
http://www.deltacostproject.org/http://www.deltacostproject.org/

Documents

Delta on Athletic and Academic Spending