The Price of Winning and the Impact on the NCAA Community

Abstract

In many cases, athletics department spending has been spurred by a desire to field more competitive athletics programs, and it has been assumed that spending more would result in greater on-the-field success for the athletics program. However, little empirical evidence exists to support this assumption, and few studies have explored financials trends related to cost-benefit of intercollegiate athletics program. Thus, the aim of this study was to determine the relationship between on-the-field success and spending while also exploring current trends. The authors drew longitudinal data from EADA reports and then examined the association with Directors' Cup rankings at the end of these respective seasons. The results indicated that a relationship between overall expenses and on-thefield success does exist, and points to operating expenses, rather than coaching salaries and recruiting expenses, as having greatest influence on this relationship. The cost-benefit analysis and trends over time are also explored and discussed.

A Dying Trend or a Viable Option: Dual-Role Athletic Department Employees

“…Researchers assert NCAA athletic programs are dominated by an unsustainable commercial model in which institutions are utilizing a cycle of spending that leaves many institutions operating in the red (Bowen & Levin, 2003;Cooper & Weight, 2011;Schulman & Bowen, 2001;Sparvero & Warner, 2013;Tobin, 2005;Weaver, 2011). Still, such spending continues because athletic victories are perceived to generate revenue streams for many institutions, particularly at the Division I level in revenue-generating sports.…”

“…Still, such spending continues because athletic victories are perceived to generate revenue streams for many institutions, particularly at the Division I level in revenue-generating sports. The revenue streams are intended to be used to further augment athletic programs, which they believe will help generate future athletic success (Getz & Siegfried, 2012;Sparvero & Warner, 2013;Weaver, 2011). Researchers claim that this commercial model, while most evident in Division I, is not entirely unique to Division I (Bowen & Levin, 2003;Schulman & Bowen, 2001;Sparvero & Warner, 2013;Tobin, 2005).…”

“…The revenue streams are intended to be used to further augment athletic programs, which they believe will help generate future athletic success (Getz & Siegfried, 2012;Sparvero & Warner, 2013;Weaver, 2011). Researchers claim that this commercial model, while most evident in Division I, is not entirely unique to Division I (Bowen & Levin, 2003;Schulman & Bowen, 2001;Sparvero & Warner, 2013;Tobin, 2005). Researchers have found similarities in practices across all three divisions of competition.…”

Examining the motivations and benefits of student-athletes performing community service.

“…In addition, their student-athlete handbooks rarely mentioned community service opportunities besides in the form of punishment . The concern is with universities, especially Division I, spending ever-increasing funds to provide the "best product" on their athletic playing fields as possible, while decreasing their attention on helping student-athletes develop academically (Descrochers, 2013;Nite, 2012;Sparvero & Warner, 2013).…”

Examining Hybrid-Gift Philanthropy in Division I Intercollegiate Athletics: A Mixed Methods Study

“…Salaries and costs continue to rise, and more often than not, budgets struggle to keep up. A perceived ICA "arms race," which in the ICA context refers to outspending competitors on facilities and coaching salaries leads to more wins (Nixon, 2014), is in full swing and likely unsustainable (Bass, Schaeperkoetter, & Bunds, 2015;Frank, 2004;Getz & Siegfried 2012a;Gurney, Lopiano, & Zimbalist, 2017;Hessel & Perko, 2010;Humphreys & Mondello, 2007;Knight Commission, 2001;Orszag & Orszag, 2005;Sparvero & Warner, 2013). As a result, revenue sources have become crucial, but many revenue opportunities are finite.…”