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.
7/29/2019 Delta on Athletic and Academic Spending
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).
7/29/2019 Delta on Athletic and Academic Spending
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.
7/29/2019 Delta on Athletic and Academic Spending
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).
7/29/2019 Delta on Athletic and Academic Spending
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)
7/29/2019 Delta on Athletic and Academic Spending
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.
7/29/2019 Delta on Athletic and Academic Spending
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.
7/29/2019 Delta on Athletic and Academic Spending
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.
Source: Knight Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics, 2012.
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).
7/29/2019 Delta on Athletic and Academic Spending
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%
Spending Quartiles (spending in millions)
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.
Data Source: USA Todays NCAA Athletics Finance Database.
Source: Knight Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics, 2012.
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
7/29/2019 Delta on Athletic and Academic Spending
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
Spending Quartiles (spending in millions)
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.
Data Source: USA Todays NCAA Athletics Finance Database.
Source: Knight Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics, 2012.
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
7/29/2019 Delta on Athletic and Academic Spending
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=29180757/29/2019 Delta on Athletic and Academic Spending
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.pdf7/29/2019 Delta on Athletic and Academic Spending
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
7/29/2019 Delta on Athletic and Academic Spending
14/16
Football Bowl Subdivision (98 Institutions) Conerence in 2010
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
7/29/2019 Delta on Athletic and Academic Spending
15/16
Football Bowl Subdivision (98 Institutions) Conerence in 2010
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)
** excluded rom per-capita analyses because o missing/erroneous athlete count data
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
7/29/2019 Delta on Athletic and Academic Spending
16/16
Division I, No Football (50 Public Institutions)
* excluded rom all analyses because o incomplete data (or change in division)
** excluded rom per-capita analyses because o missing/erroneous athlete count data
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
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/