[81alum]

Only a tiny number of universities actually make enough revenue from their sports (TV, tickets, donations) to pay the full load of the athletics budgets--the number varies but for most years it is around 5-10%, and it is not always the same 5-10%.  This means that most universities subsidize their athletics budgets with some general funds--k.al apparently does so to the tune of $10 million.  Universities rationalize using general funds by arguing that having successful sports programs raises the profile of the University in a way that normal advancement expenditures cannot--and so spending on sports is actually an investment in university advancement (publicity and good will) that is worth the money.  But that is a very difficult benefit to quantify, and so in times of severe budget shortfalls when classes are cut and library acquisitions are scaled back, it is fair to ask about the comparative advantages of adequately funding the academic mission of a university vs. adequately funding sports.

That is one reason I can be a Stanford sports fan but probably could not be a sports fan anywhere else.  At Stanford I know that the athletics budget does not drain necessary funds away from the academic mission.  At C.al and most other universities it probably does, to a greater or lesser degree.

For those of you who are California residents, you may be interested that the general cutbacks in California to public higher education have had a devastating effect on athletic budgets in a way that no one expected.    Fees and tuition for students have skyrocketed--at UC and the CSU fees have gone up a couple of hundred percent over the last half decade.  This is a crushing blow to "balanced" Intercollegiate Athletics budgets.  Providing a full-ride athletic scholarship used to be cheap at a California public university, since the taxpayer paid for about 85% of the cost of education by keeping fees and tuition low.  The flip side of that was that a full ride athletic scholarship only needed to pay for 15% of the cost of education--the hidden subsidy by the state covered the rest.  Now, however, fees have gone so high that the public subsidy is below 50%, at the CSU it is down to 31% by some estimates.  This means an athletic scholarship now has to cover as much as 69% of the cost of a student's education.  Another way of putting it--it costs Fresno or SDSU or SJSU about 5 times as much to give a student an athletic scholarship as it did just a few years ago.  I'm sure C.al is experiencing similar issues, which has to hope that the new Pac 12 TV deal and increased alumni giving can prevent a need to pillage academic budgets to sustain their athletics program.

[81alum]

Only a tiny number of universities actually make enough revenue from their sports (TV, tickets, donations) to pay the full load of the athletics budgets--the number varies but for most years it is around 5-10%, and it is not always the same 5-10%.  This means that most universities subsidize their athletics budgets with some general funds--k.al apparently does so to the tune of $10 million.  Universities rationalize using general funds by arguing that having successful sports programs raises the profile of the University in a way that normal advancement expenditures cannot--and so spending on sports is actually an investment in university advancement (publicity and good will) that is worth the money.  But that is a very difficult benefit to quantify, and so in times of severe budget shortfalls when classes are cut and library acquisitions are scaled back, it is fair to ask about the comparative advantages of adequately funding the academic mission of a university vs. adequately funding sports.

That is one reason I can be a Stanford sports fan but probably could not be a sports fan anywhere else.  At Stanford I know that the athletics budget does not drain necessary funds away from the academic mission.  At C.al and most other universities it probably does, to a greater or lesser degree.

For those of you who are California residents, you may be interested that the general cutbacks in California to public higher education have had a devastating effect on athletic budgets in a way that no one expected.    Fees and tuition for students have skyrocketed--at UC and the CSU fees have gone up a couple of hundred percent over the last half decade.  This is a crushing blow to "balanced" Intercollegiate Athletics budgets.  Providing a full-ride athletic scholarship used to be cheap at a California public university, since the taxpayer paid for about 85% of the cost of education by keeping fees and tuition low.  The flip side of that was that a full ride athletic scholarship only needed to pay for 15% of the cost of education--the hidden subsidy by the state covered the rest.  Now, however, fees have gone so high that the public subsidy is below 50%, at the CSU it is down to 31% by some estimates.  This means an athletic scholarship now has to cover as much as 69% of the cost of a student's education.  Another way of putting it--it costs Fresno or SDSU or SJSU about 5 times as much to give a student an athletic scholarship as it did just a few years ago.  I'm sure C.al is experiencing similar issues, which has to hope that the new Pac 12 TV deal and increased alumni giving can prevent a need to pillage academic budgets to sustain their athletics program.