University of Akron students want to know how much of their fees go toward athletics

[Zip_ME87]

Trust me...it hasn't always been on the website. But this is after you've gone looking into buying tickets yourself. As a Rowdie I never heard of this, working for athletics I'd never heard of this, while graduating I never heard of it. For all the mail/emails/pamphlets I received towards graduating, it wasn't included in it. Now perhaps thats because I graduated in December...

I'm just saying...getting the word out about an Alumni package is easy and inexpensive.

I get it, and I agree. If you don't mind my asking, what kind of things do they include in the mail/emails/pamphlets related to soon becoming an alumnus as you're approaching graduation? It sure seems like the perfect time to congratulate one on getting one's degree, becoming an alumnus, and asking one to remain involved with the university, if possible, as we are all part of the university community. It would also seem the perfect time to state something to the effect that the university recognizes a recent graduate may have loans, their starting salary isn't as high as they might be earning in 5-10 years, and in recognizing this the UoA Ath Dept offers this relatively inexpensive and convenient alumni package in the hopes that you will continue to support the Zips.

[LZIp]

I got a personalized card from some students who worked in Simmons I think which was nice, a UA alumni sticker, and a pamphlet asking me to donate. LOL

[Balsy]

I got the same as LZip, except my card was signed by people I used to work with over in Simmons. RooCrew, which is a inexpensive way for alumni to help with recruitment/orientation/random other official events I only found out after signing up for an alumni newsletter.

[skip-zip]

I wonder how the recent news that families of athletes going to the Final 4 or Football Playoff will get thousands of dollars for travel, hotels, and other expenses impacts this discussion?

To me, it's just another glaring example that Akron spends very little on athletics. And winning the EM Cup a few years ago is quite an accomplishment, and it's also proof that Akron manages their athletics well, and still wins and provides pride for its students and alums, despite the limited budget.

I'm not sure if this discussion belongs here, but with approval from the NCAA to give player's families MONEY, we're venturing in to new territory. Imagine recruits feeling as if they have a pretty good chance of getting their loved ones a FREE VACATION at some point during their career if they choose the top contending schools in either sport? The un-level playing field in D-1 athletics just got a lot more un-level today.

[Balsy]

I'm not sure if this discussion belongs here, but with approval from the NCAA to give player's families MONEY, we're venturing in to new territory. Imagine recruits feeling as if they have a pretty good chance of getting their loved ones a FREE VACATION at some point during their career if they choose the top contending schools in either sport? The un-level playing field in D-1 athletics just got a lot more un-level today.

I don't agree. They're supplying a trip. And it's the NCAA supplying the trip, not the school. Those top athletes would have been going to those top programs anyways so it's somewhat of an irrelevant thing.

[Dave in Green]

A nickel here, a dime there, it's all going toward the rich getting richer. The NCAA is like a political party catering to the biggest, wealthiest donors.

[Dr Z]

The NCAA is like a political party catering to the biggest, wealthiest donors.

I just wish we could practice as much as Columbus can! How valuable would that be????? I could care less about a trip, that doesn't improve your team.

[ZippyRulz]

U of Akron poised to "lead the way" in athletics funding transparency

http://college.usatoday.com/2015/01/13/u-of-akron-poised-to-lead-the-way-in-athletics-funding-transparency/

[Balsy]

U of Akron poised to "lead the way" in athletics funding transparency

http://college.usatoday.com/2015/01/13/u-of-akron-poised-to-lead-the-way-in-athletics-funding-transparency/

I approve of this. This was a frequent complaint of students before I went there, while I was there (including myself) and after I left. Students have the right to know. And if it is $400 per student as the report suggests, than it's absurd.

Though I support UA athletics, many resources have not been updated...maintained...or made available to students over the years. Athletics is a good thing for all students to enjoy, but student fees IMO should largely support students in their day-to-day academic lives.

[ZippyRulz]

I approve of this. This was a frequent complaint of students before I went there, while I was there (including myself) and after I left. Students have the right to know. And if it is $400 per student as the report suggests, than it's absurd.

Though I support UA athletics, many resources have not been updated...maintained...or made available to students over the years. Athletics is a good thing for all students to enjoy, but student fees IMO should largely support students in their day-to-day academic lives.

I also agree with the move to transparency...it's the right thing to do and the other state U.'s in Ohio will have to follow suit. But since the general fees make up our sports budget deficit, are you saying the budget should be slashed? Where would you recommend doing the slashing?

[Balsy]

That's a great point. I'm not saying I have all the answers here. But if it is in fact true that $400/423 dollars (94%) it's outrageous. There may be nothing that can be done now, but that amount or percentage doesn't just happen over night. It's likely the outcome of decades of miss management and poor decision making.

I have a feeling though (assuming the 94%, or $400 is accurate) that it isn't the whole story. I'd be willing to bet that the Recreation center would be grouped into that because the field house is run by athletics, and is attached to the same building...if that were the case the amount would still be a little less outrageous. Still high, just not as outrageous.

Without any idea of what our athletic budget looks like, I can't really say what I'd slash.

[zippy5]

400 bucks out of whatever thousands tuition is isn't really all that much.

[Balsy]

It is when 428 is "student fees". And student fees are supposed to go towards student services...ie bussing, tutoring services, the rec center, counciling services, the student union (the list goes on...and on...and on). It also is a lot when student groups (which get their funding through a portion of the student fees) are constantly denied fees (regardless of their enrollment and student participation in events they hold) because there's not enough money going around...than yeah, students get a little upset about $400 going to something they don't particularly care to be a part of. Or at least be a part of for $400.

When times are tough, cuts are usually made to the availability to student services. That's kinda why students would get a little upset.

It is a lot of money Zippy5. Because it's additional money added onto tuition: That would be 400 a semester...800 a year...3200 if you graduate in 4 years. How about you take out a student loan and pay interest on 3200 so that Zips athletics can continue to suck.

I mean, I support the Zips (and I'm lucky enough to have zero student loans), but I'm trying to be objective here. This is how most students will see that. And can you seriously blame them?

[Balsy]

If the number is true...There are roughly 26000 students on UA's campus (graduate and undergraduate, both of which still pay student fees regardless of scholarships, assistant-ships etc). That's 26,000 x 400 = 10,400,000 x2 = 20,800,000

That's a really, really shocking number. A sold out Infocision Stadium (for a season) doesn't even grace half that.

If you really want a reason as to why UA's athletic department, or care...or drive to improve doesn't exist, or hardly exist...that number right there would be it.

This is of course assuming that 400 per semester is accurate.

[zippy5]

So if student fees were 800 bucks, and it was only 50 percent, would it be a big deal? I mean, just seems like a drop in the bucket compared to the total cost of school.

[Dave in Green]

Let's not get confused by accounting methods. The fact that UA identifies most of a specific student fee as going toward athletics is purely an accounting method. To put this at a more basic level, all the money that comes into a university can be thought of as a single pile of cash, out of which everything the university does has to be paid from. UA could just as easily say that specific student fee is used exclusively for academic expenses and pay for athletics out of the general fund. In fact, that's what many schools do. So UA can't be faulted for lack of transparency.

College athletics cost a fair amount of money and the money has to come from somewhere. The more successful you want the athletic programs to be the more it's going to cost. Everyone needs to make up their minds about how much of its total budget UA should dedicate to athletics and not be distracted by the accounting detail of whether the costs are assigned to a specific student fee or the general fund.

[Balsy]

So if student fees were 800 bucks, and it was only 50 percent, would it be a big deal? I mean, just seems like a drop in the bucket compared to the total cost of school.

Yes it would. A semester costs roughly $4,309 according to UA's website. That's without the student fee. So roughly $4,900 (with other misc. fees) making the athletics portion roughly 8.1% of the cost to go to school. Drop in the bucket? That's huge. 8.1% the cost to go to school for the experience to sit in the JAR and a 3-33 football team.

It's very easy to see why many students would get upset about this.

Let's not get confused by accounting methods. The fact that UA identifies most of a specific student fee as going toward athletics is purely an accounting method. To put this at a more basic level, all the money that comes into a university can be thought of as a single pile of cash, out of which everything the university does has to be paid from. UA could just as easily say that specific student fee is used exclusively for academic expenses and pay for athletics out of the general fund. In fact, that's what many schools do. So UA can't be faulted for lack of transparency.

College athletics cost a fair amount of money and the money has to come from somewhere. The more successful you want the athletic programs to be the more it's going to cost. Everyone needs to make up their minds about how much of its total budget UA should dedicate to athletics and not be distracted by the accounting detail of whether the costs are assigned to a specific student fee or the general fund.

I understand that, which is also why I'm curious to find out if the rec center is grouped under the same part of the budget or not. Don't get me wrong: I am not faulting UA and I don't have a problem with the fee. I'm trying to point out why UA students would be outraged by this, and we can't necessarily disagree with them. I'm an advocate for engaging current students in all conversations, being completely transparent 100% of the time with students and actually treating them like they and their opinions matter. Because those students are your future alumni. Treat them like they matter, they're more likely to return.

[zippy5]

Point is, like DiG said.. It's all money coming into the U, whatever label they put on it. I'd wager if the "fee" went down, "tuition" might rise a bit.

[Balsy]

Point is, like DiG said.. It's all money coming into the U, whatever label they put on it. I'd wager if the "fee" went down, "tuition" might rise a bit.

But if UA is looking to be transparent, than it does matter if they lower a fee to increase tuition cost. Because that would be disingenuous to the problem: that amount is too high. Students should be; and are completely justified in being upset about paying $800 a year to support athletics. At $800 a semester, students should be sitting in the club section of Infocision Stadium and the lower bowl chair backs of the JAR.

[MDZip]

I applaud the University for bringing this discussion to the forefront, but I worry this could be the beginning of the end for student "support". I would also have to admit that if I was still in school I would also question why the fees I paid went to support sports programs that are not essential to the mission of higher education. What it boils down to is that students are paying to allow other students to attend college for free. $400 might not sound like a lot in consideration of overall tuition but to a college student it most definitely is. I wonder if this could be the beginning of a backlash of regular students involuntarily supporting these programs.

[Dave in Green]

For a reality check, ESPN and USA Today have annual features on college athletics revenues and expenses. They're not perfect because they rely on information released by each school, and there's no standard accounting method. But, taken with a grain of salt, they start to give an idea of how UA compares with other schools. The ESPN numbers are presented in table form that separates total operating revenue into individually sortable columns such as money that comes from student fees, university subsidies, donations, ticket sales, etc., and total operating expenses into such subcategories as recruiting, travel, medical expenses, etc. This is quite a comprehensive set of numbers.

For example, if you sort by the student fees column to see who relied most on those specific fees, UA comes in #3 at $19,109,155. Sorting by the university subsidy column shows UA way down the list at $1,660,331. For comparison, Central Michigan is near the bottom of student fees with $75,200 shown but #4 in university subsidies at $18,497,623. So even though CMU claims a tiny amount of student fees are used for athletics, the university subsidizes athletics primarily out of its general fund with comparable total money to UA.

Going through the various categories will give you an idea of how pathetically low UA and other smaller schools stand in comparison to the big boys. For example, UA was near the bottom of the contributions and donations column at $1,126,953 vs. $58,907,876 for #1 Wisconsin -- roughly 2%. Under ticket sales, UA was a lowly $1,177,127 vs. $60,860,735 for #1 Texas -- again roughly 2%. Spend a little time studying the numbers in these tables and you begin to understand how the poorer schools have no choice but to use a portion of student fees if they want to compete in athletics at a level remotely close to the richer schools.

The most recent USA Today study doesn't have all the revenue and expense subcategories ESPN has, but does have sortable columns for total subsidy and % subsidy. If you sort by % subsidy, UA is down at #77 with 74.30% of total athletic expenses being subsidized in one way or another ($20,769,486 total subsidies vs. $28,407,737 total expenses). The Zips are right in the middle along with other MAC schools and other MAC-level conferences. At the top a handful of high major schools have zero subsidies because their athletics generate so much cash, while at the bottom a large number of smaller schools subsidize 80-90% of their athletic expenses.

I think the more we look at real numbers and real comparisons with other schools the more likely we're able to form educated opinions on how UA has been performing and what needs to be done to help fund athletics at a level that's acceptable and appropriate for all concerned.

ESPN Tables

USA Today Tables

[Balsy]

Dave, I understand the reality you just pointed out. I'm not contending that, and I'm not disagreeing with UA's decision to do it. But $400 is ridiculously high, and no one should be shocked that students would complain about this.

[Dave in Green]

The cost of competing at a high level in college athletics has become ridiculously high. College coaches are starting to command higher salaries than professional coaches, college players want to unionize and be paid beyond their free scholarships, fans are demanding only the best and won't support teams that don't play in first class facilities and consistently win at the highest level. This all costs money, lots and lots of money. If you want to play someone has to pay. If no one wants to pay the alternative is not to play.

[ZachTheZip]

But $400 is ridiculously high, and no one should be shocked that students would complain about this.

That's a tough claim to make without knowing what the fee is at many other schools at and around Akron's level of competitiveness.

[Balsy]

That's a tough claim to make without knowing what the fee is at many other schools at and around Akron's level of competitiveness.

I don't agree, which is why I'm arguing this in the first place. It is not a tough claim to make when it equates to 8.1% of the total cost to go to school. That money will grow with interest as well for those using loans to pay for it. Even if it's equitable to what other schools are doing, its very high.

Again: The arguement I'm making here is the viewpoint current students, future students, and their parents are going to hold and do hold.

The cost of competing at a high level in college athletics has become ridiculously high. College coaches are starting to command higher salaries than professional coaches, college players want to unionize and be paid beyond their free scholarships, fans are demanding only the best and won't support teams that don't play in first class facilities and consistently win at the highest level. This all costs money, lots and lots of money. If you want to play someone has to pay. If no one wants to pay the alternative is not to play.

Which is the problem. It's a constant war of keeping up with the joneses. I know I don't have any solutions here, but I do not believe charging students exorbinant amounts of money to "keep competitiveness" is necessarily a good thing. Maintaining student services (upgrading the) as well as maintaining the quality of the student's education should be top priority.