College presidents, athletic directors, and other higher education leaders have been quick to defend their athletic programs in the light of recruiting scandals, seven-figure salaries for coaches, the Penn State atrocity, player abuse by coaches, and unsustainable budget and facility increases. Their claims focus on the value athletic programs bring to the university, how sports are the heart and soul of universities, how athletic departments lift all boats, increase the fundraising abilities, and make the universities world class institutions. Athletic programs are an integral part of the athletic experience, but their value to higher education is often overstated.
For the sake of discussion, consider the question, “What do the football teams look like at the schools that top the list for National Institute of Health (NIH) funding?”
In 2010 about $21.2 billion of NIH funding was distributed to universities. Two-thirds of that funding, about $14 billion) was distributed in 10 states (CA, MA, NY, PA, TX, MD, NC, WA, IL, OH). Colorado was ranked 19th at $283 million, or 1.33% of total funding.
The top 100 universities received $19.5 billion, or 92% of total NIH funding in 2010. The top 10 schools received 24.5% of the NIH funding, or $5.2 billion. They are listed below, along with their NCAA level of competition:
- Johns Hopkins University, $686.5 million, Division 3.
- University of Pennsylvania $577.0 million, Division 3.
- University of Washington $570.7 million, Division 1.
- University of Michigan, $565.1 million, Division 1.
- University of California at San Francisco, $537.7 million, no athletic program.
- University of Pittsburgh, $493.0 million, Division 1.
- Washington University, $449.5 million, Division 3.
- Yale University, $442.4 million, Division 3.
- University of California at San Diego $441.0 million, no football program.
- Duke University, $438.9, Division 1 football.
Four schools were from Division 1, four schools played in Division 3, UCSD did not have a football team, and the UCSF did not have an athletic program. In other words, academics take precedence at a majority of the top 10 schools on the list of NIH funding.
The 2010 athletic budgets for the schools in major athletics conferences follow:
- University of Washington, $60.6 million projected revenue.
- University of Michigan, $94.4 million projected revenue.
- University of Pittsburgh, not available.
- Duke University, $68.8 million projected revenue.
The funding from NIH is 6-9 times greater than the athletic budgets for these schools.
Pac 12 fans will be pleased to see that the current PAC-12 schools were well represented in the top 100 schools for NIH funding.
- 3. University of Washington $570.7 million, 2.7%.
- 11. UCLA, $436.6 million 2.1%.
- 12. Stanford University, $413.5 million 1.9%.
- 24. USC, 242.2 million 1.1%.
- 44. University of Utah, $166.5 million, 0.8%.
- 55. University of California Berkeley $137.3 million, 0.6%.
- 66. University of Arizona, $109.2 million, 0.5%.
- 94. University of Colorado at Boulder $67.0 million 0.3% – does not include UCD.
These eight PAC-12 schools received 10.1% of total NIH funding for 2010.
The 2010 athletic budgets for these schools follow:
- University of Washington, $63.2 million.
- UCLA, $61.9 million.
- Stanford, not available
- USC, not available
- University of Utah, $27.8 million.
- University of California Berkeley, $69.4 million
- University of Arizona, $45.0 million.
- University of Colorado at Boulder, $46.6 million.
The data makes the case that both academics and athletics make different, but significant fiscal contribution to universities. College leaders are only kidding themselves when they overstate the value of athletic programs.