Athletic Budget highest of the Ohio MAC schools

[ZachTheZip]

A warning: this article is heavily populated by the opinion of one of the OU professors who wants to drop sports. You remember that problem they had with the professors down there fighting the athletic department. But that's not the point of me posting this here. The point is this:

Akron is among the biggest spenders in the MAC.

This year, the university’s athletics budget is the highest of Ohio MAC schools at $24.3 million. Akron’s athletics budget is 5 percent of the university’s $484.4 million total university budget.

Also, the OU prof gets smacked down pretty hard when presented with actual facts provided by BGSU pres Carol Cartwright, who was on the Knight Commission this year.

[Z.I.P.]

A warning: this article is heavily populated by the opinion of one of the OU professors who wants to drop sports. You remember that problem they had with the professors down there fighting the athletic department. But that's not the point of me posting this here. The point is this:

Akron is among the biggest spenders in the MAC.

This year, the university’s athletics budget is the highest of Ohio MAC schools at $24.3 million. Akron’s athletics budget is 5 percent of the university’s $484.4 million total university budget.

Also, the OU prof gets smacked down pretty hard when presented with actual facts provided by BGSU pres Carol Cartwright, who was on the Knight Commission this year.

President Cartwright has a pretty perverse definition of "subsidized", if she thinks student mandated fees aren't supporting athletic budgets. But, the difference in funding referenced between Big Ten and MAC schools is also interesting. Yes -- they spend disproportionally for athletics -- but look at the differences in funding simply for non-student athlete academic support. Why and how do BCS-level schools spend so much more per student (about 50%) for academic support compared to the MAC?

[GP1]

Why and how do BCS-level schools spend so much more per student (about 50%) for academic support compared to the MAC?

I know it is rude to answer a question with a question, but there is no malice in the following question. Why does a dog lick his balls?

BCS schools know you have to take at risk kids to compete at that level. If you are going to take at risk kids, you had better put a bunch of money into supporting their difficulties in the classroom. BCS schools have a ton of money to throw around.

Fans at MAC schools are immature and think at risk kids have poor character; therefore, they should not be recruited leaving the MAC in the pathetic state it is today. If we had the academic support we needed, we could hold onto better players. Instead, they come here for a year or two and flunk out because of the lack of help. Then the coach gets fired...then they start the "rebuilding" process.

Fans of BCS schools understand they need to take at risk players. These fans are willing to look the other way at minor offenses off the field as long as their team is winning. Hell, they are willing to look the other way on major offenses as long as they are winning.

Talent is hugely important. If it wasn't, people wouldn't focus on recruiting the way they do. You need talent to win. If you can't hold onto your talent, you lose. It's very simple.

[Z.I.P.]

Why and how do BCS-level schools spend so much more per student (about 50%) for academic support compared to the MAC?

I know it is rude to answer a question with a question, but there is no malice in the following question. Why does a dog lick his balls?

BCS schools know you have to take at risk kids to compete at that level. If you are going to take at risk kids, you had better put a bunch of money into supporting their difficulties in the classroom. BCS schools have a ton of money to throw around.

Fans at MAC schools are immature and think at risk kids have poor character; therefore, they should not be recruited leaving the MAC in the pathetic state it is today. If we had the academic support we needed, we could hold onto better players. Instead, they come here for a year or two and flunk out because of the lack of help. Then the coach gets fired...then they start the "rebuilding" process.

Fans of BCS schools understand they need to take at risk players. These fans are willing to look the other way at minor offenses off the field as long as their team is winning. Hell, they are willing to look the other way on major offenses as long as they are winning.

Talent is hugely important. If it wasn't, people wouldn't focus on recruiting the way they do. You need talent to win. If you can't hold onto your talent, you lose. It's very simple.

Yes -- but I was referring to non-athletes (see original post). Oh, well.

[GP1]

Why and how do BCS-level schools spend so much more per student (about 50%) for academic support compared to the MAC?

I know it is rude to answer a question with a question, but there is no malice in the following question. Why does a dog lick his balls?

BCS schools know you have to take at risk kids to compete at that level. If you are going to take at risk kids, you had better put a bunch of money into supporting their difficulties in the classroom. BCS schools have a ton of money to throw around.

Fans at MAC schools are immature and think at risk kids have poor character; therefore, they should not be recruited leaving the MAC in the pathetic state it is today. If we had the academic support we needed, we could hold onto better players. Instead, they come here for a year or two and flunk out because of the lack of help. Then the coach gets fired...then they start the "rebuilding" process.

Fans of BCS schools understand they need to take at risk players. These fans are willing to look the other way at minor offenses off the field as long as their team is winning. Hell, they are willing to look the other way on major offenses as long as they are winning.

Talent is hugely important. If it wasn't, people wouldn't focus on recruiting the way they do. You need talent to win. If you can't hold onto your talent, you lose. It's very simple.

Yes -- but I was referring to non-athletes (see original post). Oh, well.

Got it.

They have bigger endowments at BCS schools so they can afford to spend a lot of money on students.

Maybe someone could do a study on the level of endowments MAC vs. BCS and see what they come up with.