Tag: CU

Do Athletic Programs Lift the Boats of All Programs at Top Universities? – NIH Funding

horvath Leave a comment

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:

  1. Johns Hopkins University, $686.5 million, Division 3.
  2. University of Pennsylvania $577.0 million, Division 3.
  3. University of Washington $570.7 million, Division 1.
  4. University of Michigan, $565.1 million, Division 1.
  5. University of California at San Francisco, $537.7 million, no athletic program.
  6. University of Pittsburgh, $493.0 million, Division 1.
  7. Washington University, $449.5 million, Division 3.
  8. Yale University, $442.4 million, Division 3.
  9. University of California at San Diego $441.0 million, no football program.
  10. 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.

 

Academic Arrogance – Take II

horvath Leave a comment

In 2010, the University of Colorado made a business decision to leave the Big 12 Athletic Conference and accept an invitation to join the PAC-12, a move that became official in July 2011. At the time, even the sharpest critics of CU Athletics expressed limited opposition to the move.

In their inaugural PAC-12 season the Buff athletes held their own on and off the field. In light of comments made by CU’s top brass last fall, it is fair to raise the question, “Have the CU administrators delivered the goods on the academic side?”

When CU and Nebraska jumped ship in 2010, other schools entered discussions about joining or starting new conferences. Those discussions included bringing other Big 12 schools into the PAC-12 and making it the PAC-16.

The Denver Post published an article, “CU President Leery of PAC-12 Adding More Teams”. The article stated…

University of Colorado president Bruce Benson said this morning he is wary of further Pac-12 expansion, particularly if Colorado is placed in an “East” division with former rivals from the Big 12 such as Oklahoma and Texas.

The real issue is money. Many Buff fans (and administrators) were tired of losing to the Sooners and Longhorns. The Buffs were in the same athletic conference as these schools, but they are in a much different league when it comes to funding athletics.

The same holds true on the academic side. What has CU done to improve the financial status of the university other than demand double digit tuition increases and beg for greater funding from the state legislature? Have they reduced academic programs that are not financially viable? Have they forced schools and colleges to become financially responsible? What is CU doing to produce better academic programs in a more efficient manner?

Later in the article Benson added…
“One of the reasons – and there are a lot of reasons – we got in the Pac 12 is to play regularly on the West Coast,” Benson said. “When I hear things like East-West divisions, we’re going back to the Big 12 again. I don’t know who’s possibly going, but I sure don’t want to get shorted out of the West Coast.”

Benson is a sharp businessman and knows that CU has many wealthy alumni on the West Coast. Hopefully, they will feel a closer tie to CU because of the PAC-12 football and basketball games played in their backyard. Benson in counting on that presence to increase support and donations for the university.

How much additional funding from donors can be attributed to the Buffs being in the PAC-12? How many new partnerships with the private sector have been developed? How many new patents have resulted from the Buffs being in the PAC-12?

The Post article went on to say..
Benson and DiStefano always maintained a major reason for CU joining the Pac-12 was that the schools matched Colorado’s academic mission. While Oklahoma and Texas are on a par with CU academically, Texas Tech and Oklahoma State may not be. “I believe that we should have a robust academic atmosphere among all schools in the league,” Benson said. “What schools have cinch courses or gut courses? We don’t have any and never will. The Pac-12 doesn’t. Some Big 12 schools do.”

At best, Benson’s comments were arrogant.

His comments were made at a time when CU was ranked as the #1 party school in the U.S. by Playboy Magazine. In December 2011 CU received further “honors” by being named the druggiest college in the U.S. In 2012, rankings for Businessweek showed that the Leeds School of Business was ranked 92 out of 124 schools. The Leeds School was ranked in the bottom quadrant for its core business classes. The rankings showed that CU finished ahead of former Big 12 schools Kansas State, Kansas, and Nebraska and ahead of PAC-12 schools Oregon and Utah. (Note: 16 schools from the two conferences received ratings and 7 did not. The group of 7 schools without rankings included colleges that would be ranked above and below CU). In other words, the Leeds School is an academic bottom feeder.

In some areas it is debatable whether CU is worthy of being in the PAC-12 from an academic perspective.

It is time for the CU administration to put their money where their mouth is. It seems appropriate for Benson and DiStefano to revisit their comments of a year ago about “robust academic environments”, “cinch courses”, and “joining a conference that matches CU’s academic mission”.

What has CU done during the past year to benefit from being in the PAC 12? A fact-filled evaluation, sans the spin, would help increase the credibility of the CU system.

From an athletic perspective, the move to the PAC-12 has been a positive move for the Buffs… It is easy to measure their performance on the field, in the classroom, and in fund raising. Have facilities been improved? Have current teams received better support? Have new programs been added? Have existing initiatives been support (Read with the Buffs, Green Stampede-Zero Waste, etc.)

A similar evaluation should be made for academics. Over the past year have Benson and DiStefano taken steps to deliver the goods? How many cinch courses have they eliminated? What have they done to provide CU with a more robust academic environment? What have they done to ensure that CU meets the academic standards of the conference? The list goes on.

From an athletic perspective, has Mike Bohn’s department delivered the goods?

From an academic perspective, have Benson and DiStefano provided leadership to support the arrogance demonstrated a year ago?