College sports are a huge part of sports society, particularly on a state and local level. Proving this point is the fact that many fans and alumni show their school spirit by donating the one thing every school wants – money.
Especially at universities where there are high levels of school spirit as it pertains to athletics, donations are one way for alumni and fans to feel connected to their team, even part of it. It’s a way for them to say, “Yeah, I helped my team win” because for all they know they just wrote a check that will help put a scholarship together for a key recruit.
There have been several studies that have found a team’s success and post-season survival rate affect just how much people are willing to donate. In the article “Winning Does Matter,” Stinson and Howard reveal, “…it is clear that successful athletic programs often lead current donors to make larger gifts, and perhaps more importantly, attract additional donors to the institution” (p. 17).
Because many schools believe winning is everything, some of course are willing to bend the rules and get ahead and stay on top.
Over the summer, the men’s hockey team at the University of New Hampshire was penalized by the NCAA for multiple recruiting violations. After sending 923 impermissible emails to 30 student-athletes, UNH received two-years of probation and a reduction in recruiters as part of their punishment. UNH reported their rule violations to the NCAA themselves, claiming they had sent the emails as a mistake. Whether or not that’s true is debatable, as NCAA violations are nothing new.
For some universities, getting caught violating NCAA rules can be detrimental to the program’s image. In “Fixing the Mess,” Kihl and Richardson explain, “…the consequences of corruption appear to linger well into the post-corruption period where the coaches and players will continue to experience distrust, ostracism, and embarrassment” (p. 299).
So why break these rules and risk sanctions and the public relations backlash?
The answer is pretty simple - money. Donors are more likely to back a winning team than a losing team. Winning brings more recruits, more hype, more press, and more students – and all of these bring more money.
High-profile college teams can use their television exposure, especially their post-season television appearances, to help them drag in more donations. And they do. According to Stinson and Howard, appearances in bowl games and the NCAA tournament can both lead to an increased level of donation (p. 4). For smaller programs, however, it’s all about marketing. Athletic directors must essentially market their teams to potential donors – make the university’s programs look appealing and worthy of investment in.
In this economical environment, universities are looking for new ways to get money and draw in new donors. Many programs have been cut in schools across the country because athletic departments just don’t have enough money for scholarships and other expenses.
Since money is tight, winning might be even more important to a program than before – in fact, it might just save it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
It seems like every time I am home and check the mail we have some letter from either the college my parent's both attended or even the one my older brother attended and graduated from only 2 years ago, asking for some sort of donation. If you ask me, we pay enough to these universities while we are attending them or even long after as we pay off loans and such, why do they feel they have the right to ask for more money once we have graduated? I understand many people enjoy giving large donations back to their schools as a token of their appreciation for everything they gained from these schools, but for most graduates, the last thing on their mind is to donate more money to a school which has already taken so much from them.
ReplyDeleteAs the popularity of college sports increases, as it has been for several years, both the coaching staffs and the school administration feel the pressure to uphold their reputations, within both the academic and athletic fields. We see more of a direct connection in present days of how a school's athletics affects it's popularity in attracting students and how they do academically. I find it interesting that if two high school students were to apply to the same college, one being an honor student while the other is a all american football player being recruited, the football player may receive a better opportunity to attend this school based solely on his athletic skills. Even in the "Handbook of Sports Studies," Rees and Miracle say "that athletic scholarships are given for athletic ability first (and academic ability second)" (p.282). If schools are so desperate for money yet still accepting students who they know cannot afford their school's tuition but need them for their sports teams, it almost would make more sense to accept students who academically would fit in and could perhaps offer more money to the schools in the long run. The students they are trying to make money for are those who are not paying to attend their university, while the ones who do pay the large tuitions are who they continue to ask for money long after graduation.
With all the news we hear about coaches and their staff getting in trouble for illegal recruiting, as Melissa pointed out, we do wonder why they risk this if they know getting caught will have long-term affects on not only their staff, but their entire university. When UConn was being investigated earlier this year about illegal recruiting, Quinnipiac was also in the news because it had been suggested that our new head coach, Tom Moore who had been the assistant coach at UConn, had been involved. This had potential to bring horrible press to Quinnipiac which could have hurt not only the basketball program, but the school's athletic reputation. As Melissa had mentioned, money is a large reason why coaches will go to all lengths to recruit the best players, because the better the team is the more money they will bring in for their school, allowing to continuing developing their teams. Even in Stinson and Howard's article, they point out that "At I-AA schools, both football and
basketball success measures exerted statistically significant influence over average athletic gifts, though the dollar value implications are marginal," and they also pointed out that when team's make playoffs, the alumni gifts also tend to increase (p. 12).
It almost seems as though college donations for sports is a cycle, we pay to attend the schools and while the majority of the school is not playing a sport, our tuition money and donations later our in life tends to in some way help the athletic department, which in term attracts more students. What would college life be without sports?
It is interesting to read the statistics regarding private donations, how they are utilized, and how much they actually comprise as part of funding athletic programs. Stinson and Howard’s article showed that 8% of Div I-AA, 10% of Div I-AAA and a staggering 18% of Div I-A athletic department budgets are funded via private donation (annually) (p. 2). I hadn’t really given much thought to what these numbers could possibly be prior to reading this article; it’s not really something the average person thinks about. However, after seeing these numbers, I’m not at all surprised, except I think that if I were asked to guess the stats before seeing them, I probably would have guessed higher, knowing that the combination of colleges and money never ceases to amaze.
ReplyDeleteIt’s also not surprising that the schools with larger, more successful football and men’s basketball programs are the ones that receive the most generous donations, and at very little effort from the university. As Melissa pointed out, these donations are a way for alumni and fans to feel like they made a difference in the success of a particular team. It can serve as a way to feel more like one of the group and successful by association, or even as an ego boost for the donator to boast to friends or acquaintances about their “important” donation. However, there is some substance behind this reasoning because some (or all) of the donation may literally be going toward the scholarship of a top recruited star player, who can of course help the team win.
Stinson and Howard also make an interesting point about the relationship between team success, total donation, and the percentages that go toward athletic and academic programs. Their study concluded that increased success in sports may not necessarily raise the total gift from a donor, but it tended to skew the percentage of the total donation more toward the athletic program rather than toward academic programs In their words, “The percentage of the total gifts that donors were allocating to support athletics programs was increasing more than the percentage increase in the total gift amount” (Stinson and Howard, 3).
In the Handbook (Rees and Miracle’s chapter) they point out that “the value of sport as a source of identity and school spirit, particularly for non-motivated students” (p. 279) is quite great, but can become problematic for schools when too much emphasis is applied. This is precisely the notion that was brought up earlier regarding alumni wanting to contribute to keep or gain a sense of community or identity. Although they no longer attend the school (or are simply fans of the school’s sports teams) they can still have some sort of emotional connection to the institution through its sports teams’ successes without ever attending the events themselves; all they need to do is donate money, and that automatically connects them. Sometimes big donors to programs will even get public recognition for their gifts in the form of announcements, plaques, their names on various areas of sporting arenas, stadiums, concourses, etc. or even have facilities named after them (lest all the facilities aren’t taken up by famous alumni). Increased funds brings better facilities and better players (and hopefully, winning teams), and these winning teams attract more students who bring in more money and contacts, who become fans and alumni, who in turn, will donate more funds. Ah, the circle of the checkbook of life.
In any form or sector of life, money is the main objective for companies and organizations. WIthout money we as humans cannot not survive, let alone take care of a whole family. No matter what university one may attend, schools from all over the world are looking for donations from past students. The people that do choose to donate feel as if they are doing their school justice, by helping them recruit that "elite player", build that new state of the art facility, or help the academic programs. However, obviously none of these things can be accomplished without money. One stat that was staggering to me was, ''By 2002, major donors at the University of Oregon were allocating well in excess of 50% of their annual giving in support of intercollegiate athletics'' (Sinson and Howard 2). This is an unbelievable stat considering some of the top donner's are most likely pulling in large amounts of money. It also had an affect on the status of the 2002 mens basketball team. They were able to pull in top recruits Luke Jackson, Luke Ridnour, and Fred Jones. That team in 2002 finished 6 in the nation, and reached the elite 8 in the NCAA tournament.
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, its quite disturbing to think that while donations were at an all time high at Oregon, the academic donations declined. What does this truly say about or society, Do we care more about entertainment and greed rather then the education of our youths?. I just like most people am a sports fanatic. However, these stats are unfortunate that major amounts of money are going to athletics, when most of the athletes will not be going pro. When their respective careers are over, many will be confused on what to do with their lives. Sports is all they have known, and if more money went into academics maybe universities would stress the importance of education for after sports.
As much as donations might help a university it can also help lead to their downfall. Greed can get to a university and make them feel as if their untouchable. Every year it seems we hear of a story in which a top NCAA team violates NCAA rules. Even USC has received its fair share of criticism as recent as 2009. Both the football and basketball programs were under fire. These accusations lead to a negative reputation for school teams in paticular USC basketball program. According to Kihl and Richardson, "First, during the immediate and extensive post- scandal period, the local and national reputation of a program is “stripped” which
also significantly impacts recruiting as in “why would someone go to something that was damaged” (Kihl and Richardson 286). This is evident as USC's top three basketball players all elected to enter the draft after the NCAA was investigating the program. Did they leave because they were hiding something? or did they just leave based on the fact of the schools new reputation as a program? These are two questions that cant be answered as of yet but regardless the school has suffered.
Overall, they were some interesting statistics that were mentioned in both articles . I never knew or really thought about donations in the world of college sports. Here on campus most of our donations are to academics. However, to bigger programs it obviously makes sense as alumni are enticed to still feel as if they belong to the school. I think donations are beneficial to academics, but not so much for athletics. It can help it certain aspects, but money and greed can get the best of a university (ex: usc, memphis, villanova). These schools must pay the consequences for their wrong-doings and hopefully universities will learn from their peers mistakes. Until then, money will maintain to be a major factor in the world of sports as it always has been.
Personally, this topic frustrates me. Our school is already draining every penny they can from us. Not to mention the fact that we are in a recession, and the schools my parents went to are calling us and asking for more money. They don't even go there anymore and still want more money from us.
ReplyDeleteSo where do these donations after school go to? Stinson and Howard say, "A recent study of the relationship between private giving to athletic programs and private giving to academic programs documented shifting donor patterns over the past decade". So why, if we are in a recession, do we not only give our schools more money, but give our money to sports programs?
As Melissa pointed it's the feeling of "I helped them win". Sports are a huge part of college life and can gain great reputation for a school. I mean, who doesn't love when their own college has a winning sports team? And to feel like you helped them get to that winning point is a good feeling. I know that my Dad still gets just as excited as I do when his old college wins a game. Therefore, if itis able for his donations to go to his college's sports team rather than a new math department, I feel like he and others like him, would be more inclined to donate for that purpose. Bigger donators not only lend money to a team, but they are able to put their name on a sports facility so that they are recognized in a huge way. Again, you will find many more people attending a sports facility than a science department for example. They would rather have their name where it is more frequently seen.
The money that people donate to the athletics program goes to many reasons. Equipment is needed, recruiting players, and so much for the coaching staff. Kihl and Richardson say, "A coaching staff is assigned the responsibility of fixing the corruption’s mess through effectively managing imposed sanctions, restoring integrity to the program while simultaneously maintaining a competitive program." If a student athlete creates a problem, it is the coaches responsibility not only to fix this athlete but to save the team from falling down. This requires help and money. For bigger schools, more money and bigger programs also mean more recognition and more people coming out to see their games.
So while I am a little hesitant in giving more money to college, I feel that if I were to give money, it would be to the athletic department for a number of reasons.
Every year my Dad get letters sent to the house for him to donate to his school. The donations are usually something crazy like $3,000 for a plaque with his name, on his old drom room. He then laughs and throws out the letter.
ReplyDeleteColleges and Universities live and breathe from tuition and donations. There are always alot of people who donate money to every college throughout the country. Like everything in our country this biggest and best will survive, those are the schools that always dominate the major sports. The teams with the credability are the one's who see the large donation numbers.
One would think the schools who were top in the country for academics would have the big donation numbers and they do but nothing compete with sports. We are a competitive society, since sports and how people establish they're loyalty a school like Florida, with multiple National Championship this decade, will get alot of donation money. The Stinston article said "A case study of giving to Clemson University indicated that increased winning by
the football team led to increased donor support of athletics programs" (McCormick
& Tinsley, 1990).
The donators will always be around for the colleges it is just the performances of the teams that will write the donation check.
There's something that every one needs to understand. Sports are a business, and they are all about the money. So to me, it comes as no surprise how ridiculous the donations are to these schools, such as the situation at the University of Oregon. "By 2002, major donors at the University of Oregon were allocating well in excess of 50% of their annual giving in support of
ReplyDeleteintercollegiate athletics," (Stinson and Howard 2).
The problem is when money gets to be so important in sports, especially college athletics, that you have corruption starting to grow, such as the other blog post eluded to with Memphis basketball.
All of this makes it much tougher on coaches to do their job, and now the title of being a coach comes with much more of a burden than just x's and o's and wins and losses. "Situated on the front lines, a staff must contend first hand with corruption’s ensuing aftermath. A coaching staff is assigned the
responsibility of fixing the corruption’s mess through effectively managing imposed sanctions, restoring integrity to the program while simultaneously maintaining a competitive program," (Kihl and Richardson 279).
There's no doubt that this is wrong, but will it change? It seems like universities will almost have some sort of recruiting issues every year purely because of the forces and stakes at play. Unfortunately, sports are becoming less and less pure, even at the college level.