Faculty Report: Ad Hoc Committee on Athletics and Academics
Fall 2015 – Spring 2016
Committee Members:
Dr. Russell Carpenter (Chair) Dr. Todd Hartch Dr. John Harter Dr. Matthew Howell Dr. Wardell Johnson Dr. Sheila Pressley
Presented To:
Dr. Shirley O’Brien (Chair, Faculty Senate)
Table of Contents
I. Executive Summary II. Rationale III. Review of Relevant Literature IV. Research Findings V. Academic Comparisons by Conference VI. Comparisons by Conference VII. Implications, Considerations, and Recommendations for EKU VIII. Resolution IX. Appendix: Annotated Bibliography of Peer-Reviewed Sources
Ad Hoc Committee on Athletics and Academics 2 Report for Faculty Senate | Spring 2016
I. Executive Summary
The Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Athletics and Academics met weekly during the fall 2015 semester and biweekly during the spring 2016 semester to discuss and examine the relationship between academics and athletics at Eastern Kentucky University (EKU). This report includes the following key areas: ● Rationale ● Review of Literature ● Research Findings ● Academic Comparisons by Conference ● Implications for EKU ● Resolution
The Committee gathered and reviewed literature that focuses on the relationship between academics and athletics to understand how these developments and decisions have impacted other campuses similar to EKU. In addition, the Committee assembled academic, financial, and demographic data. The Committee’s charge:
The committee will be charged with compiling a feasibility study to examine the relationship between athletics and academics. This study will contain data regarding financial considerations, student recruitment and visibility, alumni impact, and institutional comparisons to include faculty teaching and research profile of potential peer institutions, student opportunities, and the growth and visibility for the university.
Ad Hoc Committee on Athletics and Academics 3 Report for Faculty Senate | Spring 2016 II. Rationale
Hypothetical Benefits EKU is considering changing its athletic affiliation from the Football Championship Subdivision (FCS) to the Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS). This move involves increases in finances, exposure, and prestige. It is also a move that generates controversy, however. There are added expenses and an added emphasis on sports, which many feel is counter to the academic mission of colleges and universities.
In general, many points suggest the benefits of a switch from FCS to FBS for a university. First and foremost, there is a belief that it is a move that will reap financial rewards. College athletics is big business and some of the dollars would flow into the university. For examples of intercollegiate athletic finances and revenue in 2014-2015, see the USAToday listing. Ticket sales, media revenue, and NCAA and conference disbursements would increase. Wealthier athletic programs would be more likely to schedule EKU, even paying higher guarantees for those games. These direct financial benefits to the Athletics Department might filter back into the rest of the university as well.
Aside from the direct financial rewards, there are indirect financial benefits. Donors would be more likely to give money to a school with a big-time athletic program. Students would be more likely to apply and enroll in such a university. Legislators would look more favorably on requests from the university. The advertising effects from athletics can be significant. Athletics acts as the “front porch” to the university for the wider community.
Non-financial reasons also exist. Athletics can serve as an integral part of the college experience. Camaraderie and school spirit are enhanced by cheering for sports. Athletics might enhance diversity. Also, part of the reason donors might give more is because they are more connected with the university. These increased connections open up the possibility of better relationships between the university and alumni, local and regional leaders, and the larger world. These connections can showcase academics. “Relevance” is a word frequently used to describe the benefits to the university from larger athletic participation.
Finally, outside interests might benefit from a move from FCS to FBS. Besides learning about the university and potentially taking advantage of its expertise, certain groups stand to gain from a higher athletics profile. For example, more sports fans might mean more hotel stays and restaurant meals purchased in the local area, which could translate to more tax revenues for the local government jurisdictions.
Asserted Benefits In putting forth a desire to move up to FBS (Campus Forum, 2014), the EKU administration specifically referenced an increase in money flowing to the Athletics Department from outside sources and a higher university image. An increase in enrollment was also alluded to, as was a desire to keep up with other schools (WKU and other past FCS football champions).
Ad Hoc Committee on Athletics and Academics 4 Report for Faculty Senate | Spring 2016 Many of the other universities that have considered moving up (from FCS to FBS or from Division II to Division I) have commissioned feasibility studies, but these generally do not consider the underlying rationale of the change in status. Appalachian State University (2011) specifically referred to benefits in diversity, retention, and “good business” (p. 17). The report also included the unsupported assertion that the “[u]niversity wants to compete at the ‘highest levels’ academically, but this does not occur by competing at the FCS level in football” (p. 42). Success in moving up in football would be demonstrated by increases in visibility, gifts, the size and quality of the student body, and funding (p. 43) but did not claim that any of these improvements could be expected.
The athletic director at the University of South Florida (UNC, 2008) and the external consultants hired by Northern Kentucky University (NACDA, 2005) both mentioned the branding and marketing effects of athletics. The University of South Florida saw athletics as a tool to build a campus community, changing the perception of the university from a commuter school to a more traditional university.
Section References
Appalachian State University Department of Economics, Final Report of the Athletics Feasibility Committee, November, 2011, retrieved April 25, 2016, from http://issuu.com/goasu/docs/feasibility_committee_report_2011?e=0
Campus Forum on Athletics [PowerPoint slides], April 3, 2014, retrieved March 23, 2016, from http://president.eku.edu/sites/president.eku.edu/files/campus_forum_on_athletics_april.pdf
NACDA Consulting Report, Division I Analysis, May 5, 2005, retrieved March 25, 2016, from http://nkunorse.com/custompages/guides/NKU%20Feasibility%20Report%20%20043010.pdf?t ab=divisionifeasibilitystudy
NCAA Finances. USAToday, retrieved April 22, 2016, from http://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances/
UNC Charlotte Football Feasibility Committee, Athletic Director Survey, 2008, retrieved March 25, 2016, from http://chancellor.uncc.edu/sites/chancellor.uncc.edu/files/media/files/football/Appendix%2010.p df
III. Review of Relevant Literature
The academic literature suggests that intercollegiate athletics can have benefits for universities in several ways. For instance, a recent master’s thesis found investment in revenue sports beneficial to both student athletes and institutions more generally, with no inverse relationship between academic success and athletic success (Leiendecker, 2014). Another study by Anderson (2015) recognized that winning FBS football games increases alumni athletic
Ad Hoc Committee on Athletics and Academics 5 Report for Faculty Senate | Spring 2016 donations, enhances a school’s reputation, increases the number of applicants and in-state students, reduces acceptance rates, and raises average incoming SAT scores. Two analyses of “major conference” universities also saw SAT scores rise with an increase in a university’s football winning percentage (Mixon, Treviño, & Minto, 2004; McCormick & Tinsley, 1987). There also seems to be a correlation between simply being in a major athletic conference and higher SAT scores for incoming freshman (McCormick & Tinsley, 1987).
A recent study of intercollegiate hockey points to positive effects on alumni giving when teams are successful (Charles). It is clear that some institutions raise large amounts of money from external sources on account of their athletics programs (Chesslock & Knight, 2015). It is evident that college enrollments go up after winning important games and that athletics are a major form of advertising for universities (Chung, 2013). Winning teams in big-time televised college sports stimulate private donations, especially when football teams appear in bowl games (Getz & Siegfried, 2010). Conversely, high spending on athletic facilities could not be shown to have a negative correlation with institutional variables such as reputation or enrollment (Prewett, 2014).
In most of these articles, the positive impact of athletics was not very large or applied only to a subset of elite institutions. The most positive study applied specifically to FBS institutions (Leiendecker, 2014). The higher SAT scores for schools with winning football teams were only marginally higher (McCormick & Tinsley, 1987; Mixon, Treviño, & Minto, 2004). Another study (Getz & Siegfried, 2010) found little effect on the academic credentials of classes enrolled after athletic achievements. The studies showing that winning sports teams stimulate private donations to successful schools also showed that the effects were small. An article that did find higher donations to schools with successful football teams found little evidence of higher donations outside of athletics (Anderson, 2015). Moving to Division I-A from I-AA (the former equivalents of FBS and FCS respectively) increases net football revenue for two schools but led to a net decline for another (Litan, Orszag, & Orszag, 2003). In the same vein, another article pointed out that athletic rank is a normal good, meaning that, as schools have more students and better students and improve in other ways, they also tend to rank up athletically, meaning that correlations between academic and athletic success may not be causal, but rather are simply the results of the overall improvement of an institution (Sandy & Sloan, 2007).
Some articles presented more negative findings. “Empirical literature,” one says, “provides not a shred of evidence to suggest that an across-the-board cutback in spending on athletics would reduce either donations by alumni or applications by prospective students” (Frank, 2004, p. 33). A study of universities that moved from Division II up to Division I found that net financial deficits from athletics increased for every one of the universities (Orszag & Orszag, 2005). Similarly, since outside revenue landed most heavily on the top FBS schools, other institutions had to use own-source funds to keep up, resulting in subsidies to athletics from non-athletic parts of the institution (Chesslock & Knight, 2015). Another study concluded that subsidies to athletic programs are largest at the smallest and weakest institutions (Desrochers, 2013).
Ad Hoc Committee on Athletics and Academics 6 Report for Faculty Senate | Spring 2016 Another study found that students at selective institutions who spent 10 or more hours per week in athletic activities had lower entering academic credentials and academic self- assessments than non-athletes (Aries et al., 2004). Generally, the academic performance of student-athletes was shown to be better outside the season of competition than during the season. The negative in-season effects were stronger in sports known to have high in-season time demands (Division I football, baseball and softball) and among student-athletes who entered college less well prepared academically (Scott, Paskus, Miranda, Petr, & McArdle, 2008).
An issue in a few articles was the opportunity cost (the loss of potential gain from other alternatives when one alternative is chosen) of athletic spending. One article pointed out that other variables, such as decreased tuition and increased faculty pay, had effects similar to athletic success (Chung, 2013). Another article lamented that “virtually no attention” has been given to the opportunity cost of athletic spending and that “the net social welfare and equity implications of any indirect effects of college sports on the institutions that host big-time intercollegiate teams really remain unknown” (Getz & Siegfried, 2010, p. 25).
Summary and Conclusions
Limitations in much of the research points out some of the justifications that we cannot truly quantify. One of the biggest and almost impossible (to quantify objectively) is/are the various entities that may have a major influence on decisions in the athletic departments. They include politicians, alumni, donors and big dollar donors and in some cases State government. It is important that we gain a deeper understanding of how these groups impact the decision in athletic departments. In some cases, college Presidents have little say. Sander (2009) chronicles this point. In this article, Sander references the lack of power that college Presidents have when it comes to athletics. The article cited research by the Knight Commission on Intercollegiate athletics, which states “Presidents favor reining athletic cost but feel powerless to effect change” (Sander, 2009).
According to Sander (2009):
Those are among the key findings of a new report on the financing of major-college athletics programs that was issued on Monday by the Knight Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics. The report was based on a survey of 95 college presidents in the National Collegiate Athletic Association's most competitive grouping and was conducted last spring. The report also includes comments based on interviews with nearly a quarter of the campus leaders surveyed. The respondents said that while major changes were needed, presidents had limited power to control the rising expenses of sports on their own campuses and at the national and conference levels. ‘The real power doesn't lie with the presidents . . . Presidents have lost their jobs over athletics. Presidents and chancellors are afraid to rock the boat with boards, benefactors, and political supporters who want to win, so they turn their focus elsewhere.’”
Ad Hoc Committee on Athletics and Academics 7 Report for Faculty Senate | Spring 2016
Again, it is important that we gain a deeper understanding of how these groups and other dynamics impact decisions in athletic departments.
Section References
Anderson, M. L. (2015). The benefits of college athletic success: An application of the propensity score design. The National Bureau of Economic Research. NBER Working Paper No. 18196.
Aries, E., McCarthy, D., Salovey, P., Banaji, M. R. (2004). A comparison of athletes and non- athletes at highly selective colleges. Research in Higher Education, 45(6), 577-602.
Batley, James W. (2011). Athletic academic reform: Does the level of spending on academic services by athletic departments affect the academic progress rates of revenue sports? MPA/MPP Capstone Projects. Paper 90. Retrieved April 27, 2016, from http://uknowledge.uky.edu/mpampp_etds/90
Charles, C. (2010). Alumni donations and college athletics: A new look. (unpublished), Rutgers University Newark, N.J.
Chesslock, J., Knight, D. B. (2015). Diverging revenues, cascading expenditures, and ensuing subsidies: The unbalanced and growing financial strain of intercollegiate athletics on universities and their students, Journal of Higher Education, 86(3) (may/June).
Chung, J. (2013). The Flutie effect: How athletic success boosts college applications. Forbes, April 29, 2013. Retrieved April 26, 2016, from http://www.forbes.com/sites/hbsworkingknowledge/2013/04/29/the-flutie-effect-how-athletic- success-boosts-college-applications/#6405e54e6ac9
Desrochers, D. (2013). Academic Spending Versus Athletic Spending: Who Wins? Findings from the Delta Cost Project. Washington, DC: Delta Cost Project at American Institutes for Research. Retrieved from http://www.deltacostproject.org/analyses/delta_reports.asp.
Frank, R. (2004). Challenging the Myth: A Review of the Links among College Athletic Success, Student Quality, and Donations. Knight Foundation Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics.
Getz, M., & Siegfried, J. (2010). What does intercollegiate athletics do to or for colleges and universities? Vanderbilt University, Department of Economics, No. 10-W05.
Jones, D. C. (1998). Bridging the gap between academics & athletics. Strategies, 11(4), 9-28.
Ad Hoc Committee on Athletics and Academics 8 Report for Faculty Senate | Spring 2016 Leiendecker, G. (2014). Examining relationships between athletic department finances, athletic success and academic success among NCAA Division I FBS institutions. Master’s thesis, University of North Carolina, Charlotte, N.C.
Litan, R. E., Orszag, J. M., & Orszag, P. R. (2003). The empirical effects of collegiate athletics: An interim report. NCAA.
Maisel, I. (May 15, 2003). Success in Academics and Athletics. ESPN.com. Retrieved December 1, 2015, from http://espn.go.com/
McCormick, R. E., & Tinsley, M. (1987). Athletics versus academics? Evidence from SAT scores. Journal of Political Economy, 95(5), 1103-1116.
Mixon, F. G., Treviño, L. J., & Minto, T. C. (2004). Touchdowns and test scores: Exploring the relationship between athletics and academics. Applied Economics Letters, 11, 421-424.
Orszag, J. M., & Orszag, P. R. (2005). Empirical effects of division II intercollegiate athletics. Study Commissioned by the National Collegiate Athletic Association.
Prewett, H. R. (2014). The arms race in College Athletics: Facility spending and its relationship to College Athletics and University Communities. Accounting Undergraduate Honors Theses. Paper 7.
Sander, L. (2009). Presidents favor reining in athletics costs but feel powerless to effect change. The Chronicle of Higher Education, Retrieved April 25, 2016, from http://chronicle.com/article/Presidents-Favor-Reining-In/48939/
Sandy, R. (2007). The Economics of US Intercollegiate Sports and the NCAA. Handbook on the Economics of sport. Eds. Edited by Wladimir Andreff and Stefan Szymanski. Edward Elgar Publishing. Northampton, MA. 389-397.
Scott, B. M., Thomas, S. P., Miranda, M., Petr, T. A., & McArdle, J. J. (2008). In-season vs. out-of-season academic performance of college student-athletes. Journal of Intercollegiate Sports, 1, 202-226.
Vanover, E. T., DeBowes, M. M. (2013). The impact of intercollegiate athletics in higher education. Academic Perspectives in Higher Education Journal, 40-63. Retrieved April 26, 2016, from https://www.odu.edu/content/dam/odu/col-dept/efl/docs/intercollegiate-athletics-in- higher-education.pdf
Zoda, T. (2012). Can football buy smarter students?: The effect of athletic spending on football championship subdivision academic institutions. Issues in Political Economy, 21, 82-116.
Ad Hoc Committee on Athletics and Academics 9 Report for Faculty Senate | Spring 2016 IV. Research Findings
Data and Methods As the review of literature has shown, the benefits of moving from FCS to FBS conferences is of indeterminate benefits. While the benefits are real, so are the costs, and so the decision is often heavily dependent on the conditions of the university, and the exact conditions may not be obvious until after the switch to FBS. However, some pre-switch comparisons can be made to other schools similar to EKU that have made the switch. Such comparisons allow for a better understanding of the extent to which EKU resembles a successful transitioning school. To this end, data from the Office of Postsecondary Education, the USA Today NCAA Sports Database, and other sources follows Conference Comparisons, Benchmark School Comparisons, and then specific comparisons of changes in salary for coaching staff, additional added costs, SAT/ACT scores, and finally an analysis of EKU student support.
Conference Comparisons EKU is currently part of the OVC, the eighth oldest conference in NCAA Division I (ovcsports). EKU was one of the founding institutions, along with WKU and Murray State, and EKU has earned the conference title 21 times–the most in the OVC. Since 2009, the OVC has expanded twice, increasing to 13 schools. The OVC currently hosts 17 sports, all of which EKU plays. The three proposed FBS conferences to which EKU might apply are the Mid-American Conference (MAC), Conference USA (CUSA), and Sun Belt.
The MAC is older than the OVC by two years, beginning with five schools in 1948 and growing to its current 12 schools (mac-sports) and hosts 21 sports. CUSA has existed for 31 years, beginning in 1995. It currently hosts 15 teams (conferenceusa) in 19 sports. Finally, the Sun Belt Conference is in its 40th year and hosts 13 teams (sunbeltsports) and 18 sports. All three conferences play the same sports as the OVC, except that none compete in Rifle Teams.
The first comparisons are to the size and composition of the conferences, relative to EKU. Averages are derived from 11 years of OPE between 2003 and 2013 and rounded to the nearest whole number. The OVC average includes EKU.
Table 1: EKU and Conference Comparisons of Total Size
Conference Total UG Football Total Athletes (M) Total Athletes Students Players (W)
EKU 11,111 105 245 145
OVC 7,094 97 194 143
MAC 16,048 108 271 242
CUSA 13,283 111 233 181
Ad Hoc Committee on Athletics and Academics 10 Report for Faculty Senate | Spring 2016 Sun Belt 11,466 115 215 160
As Table 1 shows, EKU is large by the standards of the OVC on all measures except total women athletes. However, EKU is not clearly similar to any other conference. It is close in total size to Sun Belt, but it’s men’s teams are closer to CUSA and women’s teams are closer to OVC.
The second comparisons look at expense measures of EKU relative to the conferences. Head coach salary is standardized by Full-Time Equivalent. Again, the data are pooled over 11 years and the OVC averages include EKU. By reporting requirement, Total Revenue must equal Total Expenses, and thus the number reflects the financial size of the conference.
Table 2: EKU and Conference Comparisons of Financial Costs
Conference Head Coach Head Coach Student Aid Student Aid Total (M) (W) (M) (W) Revenue
EKU 121,652 69,615 2,188,894 1,554,609 10,700,000
OVC 103,661 64,258 1,508,527 1,217,337 8,771,485
MAC 158,829 87,795 3,259,113 2,369,735 20,600,000
CUSA 189,256 78,944 2,579,142 1,879,537 19,700,000
Sun Belt 117,495 62,787 1,698,744 1,276,895 12,900,000
EKU again is larger than the OVC average, and is, in fact, frequently the maximum in the OVC –spending far more than the OVC averages on head coach salaries, student aid, and total revenue and expenses. However, again EKU is not clearly like any other conference. It is closest to Sun Belt in head coach salary, though Sun Belt women’s head coaches are actually lower than OVC average. However, EKU’s student aid is higher, while still having a smaller program by revenue and expenses. It is considerably smaller than the MAC or CUSA.
The third set of comparisons looks directly at operational (game day) expenses for football and basketball, which are the major revenue sports at interest. Again, due to reporting requirements that revenue and expenses match, these numbers reflect less actual expenses than relative size of program.
Table 3: EKU and Conference Comparisons of Operational (Game Day) Expenses for Major Sports
Conference Football Basketball (M) Basketball (W) Total
Ad Hoc Committee on Athletics and Academics 11 Report for Faculty Senate | Spring 2016 EKU 307,305 194,596 127,978 1,404,796
OVC 315,237 177,922 124,782 1,108,360
MAC 926,942 331,802 208,432 2,605,415
CUSA 1,189,773 428,181 287,557 2,799,567
Sun Belt 900,737 308,391 207,112 2,020,339
The previous pattern continues to appear, and is most pronounced in the operational expenses of the main sports. EKU is again generally larger than the other OVC schools (though not in football), however the operations costs of the other conferences are considerably larger, up to three times higher in some cases. EKU, in operations, is most similar to the OVC.
EKU, with its long history in the OVC, is now a big school in all meanings of the word within the conference. However, compared to the MAC, CUSA, and Sun Belt, it remains a small school. MAC and CUSA are larger on all measures, though EKU does have a football team of approximately MAC size. The MAC fields more athletes. Further, the MAC’s expenses and revenues are much larger than EKU’s current size. EKU is, however, in approximately the same range as the Sun Belt Conference. If EKU were a Sun Belt member, it would be slightly on the larger side except that its revenue and expenses is slightly lower–perhaps reflecting some of the financial benefits of membership in the FBS.
Benchmark School Comparisons The comparison to the Sun Belt suggests that size of the athletic program may be a function of conference subdivision, not program itself. Thus, it makes sense to compare EKU to specific schools that made the switch from FCS to FBS. The chosen benchmark schools, which are also historically general benchmark institutions for EKU are Georgia Southern (GSU), Appalachian State (App State)–Sun Belt institutions–and WKU, a CUSA institution. Data continue to come from the OPE 11-year time series and using the same rounding conventions. Due to data reporting, some financial information is only reported to two significant figures (eg $1.70 million).
Table 4: Student Population and Athletic Personnel Comparisons, EKU to Benchmark Schools
School Total UG Total Total Coach FTE Coach FTE Students Athletes (M) Athletes (W) (M) (W)
EKU 11,111 245 145 4.7 5.79
GSU 14,216 226 171 7.09 5.9
App State 13,425 340 230 7.59 7.68
Ad Hoc Committee on Athletics and Academics 12 Report for Faculty Senate | Spring 2016 WKU 13,628 309 186 6.23 7
Table 5: Financial Comparisons, EKU to Benchmark Schools
School Head Head Total Total Coach Coach Revenue Operations Salary (M) Salary (W) (Game Day)
EKU 121,652 69,615 10,700,000 1,404,796
GSU 89,882 51,100 10,700,000 1,600,000
App State 88,968 55,438 13,700,000 1,782,690
WKU 200,000 100,000 22,000,000 2,000,000
As Tables 4 and 5 make clear, EKU is still smaller than all of the benchmark schools in the period, both in absolute size, number of athletes, number of coaches, and financial size of athletic programs. It approaches GSU in men’s sports but lags behind in women’s sports, but does have game day and total revenue sizes that are approximately similar. EKU’s Head Coach salaries are, on average, higher, but given the outsized influence football coaches have on this average, this data cannot rule out that the difference is the result of the difference in the number of coaches, not because of pay disparities. That is, having many lower-paid coaches lowers the average for the other schools, even though a comparison of media-reported salaries shows that EKU is in the same range (between $200,000 and $300,000 for head football coaches) as these comparison schools.
The benchmark schools, however, ranked up to FBS conferences during the 11-year period of the OPE data, and therefore their larger size may be attributable to the FBS, rather than their size leading them to join the FBS. In the following charts, the 2008 rank up of WKU and the 2012 rank ups of GSU and App State are marked with vertical lines.
Ad Hoc Committee on Athletics and Academics 13 Report for Faculty Senate | Spring 2016
Figure 1: Student Populations Time Series Comparison, EKU to Benchmark Schools
Figure 2: Total Revenue/Expenses Time Series Comparison, EKU to Benchmark Schools
Ad Hoc Committee on Athletics and Academics 14 Report for Faculty Senate | Spring 2016
Figure 3: Game Day Expenses Comparisons, EKU to Benchmark Schools
As these three charts show, EKU has always been a smaller school, except for its total revenue/expenses comparison to GSU. The charts also show that the process of expanding the size of the schools, the extent of the programs, and the size of the game day operations costs began for all three schools in advance of their entry into the FBS. EKU is most similar on these measures to GSU but is still a smaller school by student population.
Nor is it clear that these schools benefited from their ranking up. While the size of their programs increased after the jump, all of the schools saw their student population growth shrink. In the year after jumping to Sun Belt, App State saw a decline in population growth from 324/year in the previous decade to 276 in 2013. GSU saw a more precipitous drop from 390/year for the prior decade to an actual decline in total student body of 10 students in 2013. WKU dropped from a more modest 79/year prior to 2008 to a loss of 20/year from 2009 to 2013. By comparison, EKU’s average for the period was 50/year. All of the schools see enrollment increases from 2003 to 2010, and then declines until 2013, suggesting that the change in athletics programs is not a strong driver of student recruitment and retention.
Finally, a comparison of EKU’s ACT scores to benchmark institutions, again drawn from university factbooks, reveals that EKU and WKU are approximately similar, with average incoming freshman ACT composites of 22.1 and 22.7 in 2015 respectively. GSU uses the SAT, and has an average of 1113 combined Math and Critical Reading in 2015, which translates to an ACT composite of 23, and Appalachian State has an average ACT of 26.
Ad Hoc Committee on Athletics and Academics 15 Report for Faculty Senate | Spring 2016 However, as the literature review has shown, there may be other benefits to athletics programs in the way that they build community on campus, and for that comparison, the Committee commissioned a survey of EKU students to determine their views on athletics and academics at EKU.
Student Interest A population-based survey was administered through the Office of Institutional Effectiveness (see Table 9) that asked questions about the importance of athletics to the EKU experience. Review of the sample by the Office of Institutional Effectiveness indicates that the sample is representative of EKU’s student population.
Students were asked to rank on a 5-point scale how important athletics were to their experience coming to EKU, at EKU, and as a potential alumnus. As shown in Table 6, the modal category for all experiences is “Not at all important.” Less than 20% considered athletics moderately or very important in making their decision to come to EKU. Approximately 30% thought athletics were moderately or very important to their current experience and to their future alumni experience. The averages on all questions were below “Neutral” in the “slightly important” range.
Table 6: Student Responses to Athletic Experience Questions
Question Not at all Slightly Neutral Moderately Very Mean Important Important Important Important
How important to 36.67% 9.58% 12.92% 18.75% 22.08% 2.80 your college experience do you consider EKU's athletic teams?
How important 63.07% 4.98% 12.86% 7.47% 11.62% 2.00 were EKU's athletic teams to your decision to attend EKU?
How important do 36.67% 10.42% 16.25% 17.92% 18.75% 2.72 you think EKU's athletic teams will be to your experience as an alumni?
Ad Hoc Committee on Athletics and Academics 16 Report for Faculty Senate | Spring 2016 Students were then asked to select the most important reason for attending EKU. The modal category was Academic Programs, with 41% of students selecting that as the most important. Cost and location with 31% and 11% respectively rounded off the top three, which was consistent across all colleges. Athletic Programs ranked fourth with 8%. Students in the “other” category specifically mentioned music, cheerleading, and veteran’s support as deciding factors.
Figure 4: Most Important Reason for Attending EKU according to students, by percent
Additionally, students were asked about their engagement specifically with football, including how many games they attended, whether they talked about EKU Football, participated in homecoming events, or owned EKU merchandise. Regarding football games, there is a pronounced drop off, with 41% of students attending no games in the past season, and the average student attending 1.85 games. Only 5% of students attended more than six games and 72% attended 2 or fewer. Similarly, 56% of students did not participate in homecoming events. Students are more engaged in passive activities, with 59% talking about EKU football and 66% owning EKU Colonels merchandise.
Student Fees and Financial Interest Though EKU students are not greatly engaged directly with EKU sports, that does not mean they do not value its existence–as shown by their interest in talking about sports and showing school spirit through EKU merchandise. Additionally, 1 in 5 students did consider athletics important in their decision to come to EKU, and 3 in 10 thought it important to current experiences and future alumni experience. Athletics may be a hygiene issue. That is, a great athletics program does not encourage participation, but a poor program drives away students. The Committee thus asked students about their willingness to pay for improved athletics. Before discussing EKU student findings, though, a brief detour into comparisons between EKU and benchmark schools is necessary. Data for this section are drawn from the USA Today NCAA Finances Database, which includes data for 10 years, 2005-2014 inclusive. These data report annual student fees, size of program in ticket sales and donations, and average subsidy by the institution calculated as share of school funds in total revenue (subsidy is for 2014). Ad Hoc Committee on Athletics and Academics 17 Report for Faculty Senate | Spring 2016 Student fees/student are calculated as the average of the student fee/student for 2005-2013 using the total undergraduate students number from the OPE data as the USA Today data do not include total students. Therefore, the estimate does not include graduate students and thus overstates student fees and should be interpreted only as relative sizes. Graduate enrollment taken from school websites in 2015 is included for scale.
Table 7: External Revenue Averages and Subsidy 2005-2014, EKU and Benchmark Schools
School Tickets Contributions Licensing Fees (total) Fee/Student Grads Subsidy (%)
EKU $269,492 $266,597 $959,435 $806,405 $81.00 2,366 80.05%
GSU $849,155 $689,895 $1,023,567 $5,308,678 $329.26 2,496 71.58%
App $1,755,712 $1,865,090 $1,796,684 $7,344,123 $510.71 1,031 52.97% State
WKU $1,654,659 $1,982,870 $1,899,980 $5,381,051 $402.98 2,719 56.86%
As table 7 shows, EKU’s reliance on tickets, alumni and other contributions, and student fees are well below those of the benchmark schools. EKU has not charged student fees for athletics since 2010, and in 2009 athletic fees dropped from $2.4 million to $78 thousand. EKU’s subsidy is also larger than the benchmark schools.
EKU students were asked how much they would be willing to pay, exclusively, in either student fees or in game ticket prices in return for an FBS football program. Average willingness to pay for a ticket was $7.87 or a per-semester fee of $20.09.
However, while EKU does not currently use student fees to pay for athletics, the money does ultimately come from students. Additionally, it is notable in Table 7 that the larger programs have smaller subsidies, but it is unclear whether the actual dollar amounts from the university are shrinking as more of the cost is explicitly laid on students through athletic fees. Table 8 shows the 2014 and 2015 total revenue numbers from the NCAA data. The dollar value is also calculated and provided using NCAA estimates for 2014 and 2015 revenue (which are approximately similar to the above estimates using OPE data. NCAA data is used in this estimate for consistency with the subsidy amounts).
Table 8: Dollar Amount of Subsidy in 2014 and 2015
School Year Total Subsidy (%) Subsidy ($) Revenue
EKU 2014 $13,033,265 80.05% $10,433,128.63
2015 $14,570,284 73.69% $10,736,842.28
Ad Hoc Committee on Athletics and Academics 18 Report for Faculty Senate | Spring 2016 GSU 2014 $18,929,350 71.58% $13,549,628.73
2015 $21,144,354 65.28% $13,803,034.29
App State 2014 $19,414,754 52.97% $10,283,995.19
2015 $29,695,016 56.50% $16,777,684.04
WKU 2014 $27,716,031 56.86% $15,759,335.23
2015 $30,212,548 64.52% $19,493,135.97
As Table 8 indicates, subsidy amounts can vary substantially from year to year, with EKU dropping 7% from 2014 to 2015, but WKU increasing 8% in the same period. However, even as the percent of the subsidy declined at EKU and GSU (at EKU the drop in percentage is accounted for by an increase in donations in 2015), the dollar value of the subsidy increased because of the increased size of the program.
Not all students respond the same way, though. An analysis of the raw data from the survey reveals large differences in student willingness to pay by race (though not by value of athletics). Minority students are willing to pay more for athletics, up to twice as much, relative to white students. However, the minority subsample is very small and over half of the minority respondents did not answer this question, and thus this can only be considered suggestive of differences in student interest. Similarly, men are more willing to pay for athletics programs than women by a factor of approximately 1.5.
Additionally, the raw data reveals a dichotomy between in-state and out-of-state students’ value of athletics. Kentucky students are more likely not to value athletics as a student, a prospect, or alumni, with correlation coefficients lower than -0.2.
Table 9: EKU Student Survey Sample Information
Section References
“About C-USA,” Conference USA, retrieved from http://www.conferenceusa.com/ot/about-c- usa.html on 29 March 2016.
Ad Hoc Committee on Athletics and Academics 19 Report for Faculty Senate | Spring 2016
“About the MAC,” Mid-American Conference, retrieved from http://mac- sports.com/sports/2014/5/29/MACHistory.aspx?path=general on 29 March 2016.
“About the Sunbelt Conference,” Sunbelt Conference, retrieved from http://sunbeltsports.org/sports/2014/1/4/GENERAL_0103145239.aspx? on 29 March 2016. “Freshman Students,” Admissions, Appalachian State University, retrieved from http://admissions.appstate.edu/prospective-students/freshmen on 5 April 2016.
“Meaningful Measures,” 2015 Factbook, Office of Institutional Research, Eastern Kentucky University, retrieved from https://irserver.eku.edu/Reports/MeaningfulMeasures/MM_01-24- 13.pdf on 5 April 2016.
NCAA Finances 2003-2014, USA Today, retrieved from http://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances/ on 18 April 2016. 2015 data obtained 27 April 2016.
“OVC History,” Ohio Valley Conference, retrieved from http://ovcsports.com/sports/2012/6/13/GEN_0613124325.aspx? on 29 March 2016
Selected Data 2003-2013, Equity in Athletics Data, Office of Postsecondary Education, US Department of Education, retrieved from http://ope.ed.gov/athletics/ on 14 October 2015.
“2015 Factbook.” Institutional Research, Western Kentucky University, retrieved from https://www.wku.edu/instres/documents/2015_fact_book.pdf on 5 April 2016.
“2014-2015 Factbook,” Georgia Southern University, retrieved from https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6cVInO36nnuZTBIdU0wZnQ3Vzg/view on 5 April 2016.
V. Academic Comparisons by Conference
One way to understand the implications of FBS-related conference moves is to compare EKU’s current standing with potential future institutional peers. Academic institutions are often associated with their conference-playing peer institutions in athletics and academics. Thus, this sections offers insights into both sides, beginning with student acceptance rates by conference.
Acceptance Rate by Conference
Table 10
OVC
Rank by Institution Acceptance Acceptance Rate (in
Ad Hoc Committee on Athletics and Academics 20 Report for Faculty Senate | Spring 2016 Rate (most to percentage) least selective)
1 Tennessee State 53%
2 EKU 66%
3 Eastern Illinois 68%
4 UT Martin 73%
5 Belmont (Non-Football) 79.9%
6 SIUE (Non-Football) 80%
7 Murray State 82.1%
8 Jacksonville State 84%
9 Austin Peay 88%
10 Morehead State (Non-Football) 89%
11 Southeast Missouri 97%
12 Tennessee Tech 97%
Conference Average (does not include EKU) 74.25%
Table 11
Sun Belt
Rank by Institution Acceptance Acceptance Rate (in Rate (most to percentage) least selective)
1 Georgia State 53.4%
2 Louisiana-Lafayette 55.8%
3 Georgia Southern 56.8%
4 Appalachian State 63%
5 Arkansas State 63%
6 Coastal Carolina (future 64.2% member)
Ad Hoc Committee on Athletics and Academics 21 Report for Faculty Senate | Spring 2016 7 EKU 66%
8 Idaho (leaving) 67.5%
9 New Mexico State (leaving) 69.6%
10 Troy University 71%
11 Texas State 73%
12 South Alabama 87.3%
13 Louisiana-Monroe 92%
Conference Average (does not include EKU) 68.05%
Table 12
MAC
Rank by Institution Acceptance Acceptance Rate (in Rate (most to percentage) least selective)
1 Northern Illinois 50.9%
2 Bowling Green 53.4%
3 Buffalo 57.8%
4 Ball State 59.9%
5 UMass 61.3%
6 EKU 66%
7 Miami (OH) 66%
8 Eastern Michigan 68.8%
9 Akron 69.2%
10 Central Michigan 69.3%
11 Ohio 74%
12 Western Michigan 84%
13 Kent State 84.4%
Ad Hoc Committee on Athletics and Academics 22 Report for Faculty Senate | Spring 2016 14 Toledo 91%
Conference Average (does not include EKU) 68.46%
Carnegie Classification by Conference
Carnegie Classifications are listed by the basic category. All data gathered from the Carnegie Institution Lookup.
Table 13
OVC
Institution Carnegie Student Classification Population
EKU Master's 16,305 Colleges & Universities: Larger Programs
SIUE (Non-Football) Master's 13,972 Colleges & Universities: Larger Programs
Southeast Missouri Master's 12,087 Colleges & Universities: Larger Programs
Tennessee Tech Doctoral 11,339 Universities: Moderate Research Activity
Murray State Master's 11,207 Colleges & Universities: Larger Programs
Morehead State (Non-Football) Master's 11,052 Colleges & Universities: Larger
Ad Hoc Committee on Athletics and Academics 23 Report for Faculty Senate | Spring 2016 Programs
Austin Peay Master's 10,111 Colleges & Universities: Larger Programs
Tennessee State Doctoral 9,027 Universities: Moderate Research Activity
Eastern Illinois Master's 8,913 Colleges & Universities: Larger Programs
Jacksonville State Master's 8,659 Colleges & Universities: Larger Programs
Belmont (Non-Football) Master's 7,244 Colleges & Universities: Larger Programs
UT Martin Master's 7,042 Colleges & Universities: Medium Programs
Conference Average (does not include EKU) 10,579
Table 14
Sun Belt
Institution Carnegie Student Population Classificatio n
Texas State Doctoral 36,739 Universities: Higher
Ad Hoc Committee on Athletics and Academics 24 Report for Faculty Senate | Spring 2016 Research Activity
Georgia State Doctoral 32,556 Universities: Highest Research Activity
Georgia Southern Doctoral 20,517 Universities: Moderate Research Activity
Troy University Master's 19,041 Colleges & Universities: Larger Programs
Appalachian State Master's 18,026 Colleges & Universities: Larger Programs
Louisiana-Lafayette Doctoral 17,195 Universities: Higher Research Activity
New Mexico State (leaving) Doctoral 15,829 Universities: Higher Research Activity
South Alabama (Off Campus) Doctoral Universities: Higher 15,805 Research Activity
Arkansas State Master's Colleges & Universities: 13,144 Larger Programs
Idaho (leaving) Doctoral 11,702 Universities:
Ad Hoc Committee on Athletics and Academics 25 Report for Faculty Senate | Spring 2016 Higher Research Activity
Coastal Carolina (future Master's 9,976 member) Colleges & Universities: Larger Programs
Louisiana-Monroe Doctoral 8,517 Universities: Moderate Research Activity
Conference Average 18,253
Table 15
MAC
Institution Carnegie Student Population Classification
Buffalo Doctoral 29,995 Universities: Highest Research Activity
Kent State Doctoral 29,477 Universities: Higher Research Activity
Ohio Doctoral Universities: Higher 29,217 Research Activity
Central Michigan Doctoral 26,879 Universities: Higher Research Activity
UMass (Off Campus; Pro Doctoral 28,635 Stadium) Universities:
Ad Hoc Committee on Athletics and Academics 26 Report for Faculty Senate | Spring 2016 Highest Research Activity
Western Michigan Doctoral 23,914 Universities: Higher Research Activity
Akron Doctoral 23,962 Universities: Higher Research Activity
Eastern Michigan Doctoral 22,401 Universities: Moderate Research Activity
Ball State Doctoral 20,655 Universities: Higher Research Activity
Toledo Doctoral 20,626 Universities: Higher Research Activity
Northern Illinois Doctoral 20,611 Universities: Higher Research Activity
Miami (OH) Doctoral 18,620 Universities: Higher Research Activity
Bowling Green Doctoral 16,554 Universities: Higher Research Activity
Conference Average 23,965
Ad Hoc Committee on Athletics and Academics 27 Report for Faculty Senate | Spring 2016
VI. Comparisons by Conference
The Committee acknowledges the potential for FBS-level athletics programs to enhance the University community. In addition, the Committee also acknowledges that major athletics programs are often expensive for academic institutions to develop and maintain. In this section, the Committee offers implications, considerations, and recommendations of significance to EKU.
Student Athletes
Academic institutions and athletics departments must consider and manage travel for student athletes. Travel destinations will vary widely based on locations of peer conference institutions. The committee anticipates that the most likely impact on student athletes in a potential move to FBS would be travel. Charts 16-19 provide a comparison of possible travel destinations for EKU student athletes and teams, along with projected distances. It is also possible that conference affiliation will directly affect travel budgets and time away from class. Distances are calculated based on mileage and distance from Richmond, KY.
Table 16
OVC
Rank by Institution Distance Driving Time (Hours) Distance (Miles)
1 Jacksonville State 354.5 5.57
2 Eastern Illinois 344.0 5.30
3 UT Martin 330.2 5.15
4 Southeast Missouri 353.4 5.52
5 Tennessee Tech 154.2 2.53
6 Murray State 259.9 4.43
7 Tennessee State 225.1 3.39
8 Austin Peay 231.8 4.3
9 Belmont (Non-Football) 225.1 3.39
10 Morehead State (Non-Football) 196.6 3.10
11 SIUE (Non-Football) 361.8 5.48
Ad Hoc Committee on Athletics and Academics 28 Report for Faculty Senate | Spring 2016 Conference Average 276.05 4.38
Table 17
Sun Belt
Rank by Institution Distance Driving Time (Hours) Distance (Miles)
1 Idaho (leaving) 2,274.3 35.22
2 New Mexico State (leaving) 1,567.3 23.51
3 Texas State 1,113.4 17.15
4 Louisiana-Lafayette 856.0 13.6
5 Louisiana-Monroe 754.0 11.40
6 South Alabama (Off Campus) 652.4 9.56
7 Georgia Southern 565.8 8.39
8 Coastal Carolina (future 536.9 8.34 member)
9 Troy University 534.8 8.23
10 Arkansas State 457.8 7.30
11 Georgia State 356.8 5.31
12 Appalachian State 305.5 5.11
Conference Average 831.25 12.76
Table 18
Sun Belt (without Idaho and NMSU)
Rank by Institution Distance Driving Time (Hours) Distance (Miles)
1 Texas State 1,113.4 17.15
2 Louisiana-Lafayette 856.0 13.6
3 Louisiana-Monroe 754.0 11.40
Ad Hoc Committee on Athletics and Academics 29 Report for Faculty Senate | Spring 2016 4 South Alabama (Off Campus) 652.4 9.56
5 Georgia Southern 565.8 8.39
6 Coastal Carolina (future 536.9 8.34 member)
7 Troy University 534.8 8.23
8 Arkansas State 457.8 7.30
9 Georgia State 356.8 5.31
10 Appalachian State 305.5 5.11
Conference Average (without Idaho and NMSU) 613.34 9.4
Table 19
MAC
Rank by Institution Distance Driving Time (Hours) Distance (Miles)
1 UMass (Off Campus; Pro 880.2 14 Stadium)
2 Central Michigan 546.1 9.02
3 Buffalo 537.8 8.34
4 Northern Illinois 451.9 7.14
5 Western Michigan 405.7 6.38
6 Eastern Michigan 352.4 5.35
7 Kent State 348.7 5.35
8 Akron 337.7 5.31
9 Toledo 306.8 4.52
10 Bowling Green 250.8 3.57
11 Ball State 210.8 3.45
12 Ohio 205.7 3.43
13 Miami (OH) 137.7 2.25
Ad Hoc Committee on Athletics and Academics 30 Report for Faculty Senate | Spring 2016 Conference Average 414.36 6.5
Budget
The Committee anticipates that the most likely and most costly increases to athletics in a potential move to the FBS level would be facility updates and upgrades to align with conference peer institutions. Financial implications will vary with the size and scope of the project. Institutions around the country--of a variety of sizes and contexts--are having success securing private and corporate commitments for funding athletics facilities projects to ensure that academic funding remains constant and is not impacted.
The Sun Belt and MAC are part of the Group of Five. Group of Five conferences will receive $75 million total, including $300,000 for each school’s football team meeting the NCAA’s APR minimum for participation in a bowl game). The conferences have decided among themselves how to divide this money, which is reportedly $60 million split evenly and the remaining $15 million divided based on how the conferences rank against one another based on team performance.
By comparison, FCS conferences will receive $2.25 million to split among the member institutions (Big Sky, Big South, Colonial, Mid-Eastern, Missouri Valley, Ohio Valley, Southern, Southland, and SWAC).
In addition, FBS conference-affiliated institutions are eligible for bowl games with season records of 6-6 or better and, in 2015, 5-7 and a top APR. Tables 20 and 21 provide the Sun Belt and MAC bowl-affiliated payouts per bowl game. Institutions must usually cover costs associated with team travel to the bowl destination, costs associated with student or band- member tickets, and are at times obligated to cover the cost of a predetermined number of tickets (such as purchasing 5-7,000 tickets for the institution to resell as part of the institution’s ticket allotment). Tables 20 and 21 offer a financial perspective on FBS-level bowl eligibility.
Table 20
Sun Belt
Bowl Location Payout
Cure Bowl Orlando, FL $1,350,000
GoDaddy Mobile, AL $750,000
New Orleans New Orleans, LA $500,000
Camellia Montgomery, AL $100,000
Ad Hoc Committee on Athletics and Academics 31 Report for Faculty Senate | Spring 2016 Austin Bowl Austin, TX TBA
Table 21
MAC
Bowl Location Payout
Miami Beach Miami, FL $1,000,000
Bahamas Paradise Island, Bahamas $450,000
Famous Idaho Boise, Idaho $325,000 Potato
Camellia Montgomery, AL $100,000
Facilities
At the FBS level, per NCAA rules, institutions annually shall average at least 15,000 in attendance for all home football contests. Tables 22-25 provide capacity figures for conference institution facilities, including those in the MAC and Sun Belt.
Table 22
Football Stadia by Capacity - MAC
Rank by Distance Institution Capacity Football
1 UMass (Off Campus; Pro 68,756 Stadium)
2 Central Michigan 30,255
3 Eastern Michigan 30,200
4 Western Michigan 30,200
5 Akron 30,000
6 Buffalo 29,013
7 Toledo 26,248
8 Kent State 25,319
Ad Hoc Committee on Athletics and Academics 32 Report for Faculty Senate | Spring 2016 9 Northern Illinois 24,000
10 Ohio 24,000
11 Bowling Green 23,724
12 Miami (OH) 24,286
13 Ball State 22,500
14 EKU 20,000
Conference Average (does not include EKU) 29,884
Table 23
MAC - Basketball Arena by Capacity
Capacity Basketball Arena Institution Capacity (largest to smallest) Football
1 Ohio 13,080
Ball State 11,500
2 UMass (Off Campus; Pro Stadium) 9,493
3 Miami (OH) 9,200
4 Northern Illinois 8,500
5 Eastern Michigan 8,824
6 Toledo 7,300
7 Buffalo 6,783
8 EKU 6,500
9 Kent State 6,327
10 Akron 5,500
11 Western Michigan 5,421
12 Central Michigan 5,300
13 Bowling Green 4,387
Conference Average (does not include EKU) 7,816
Ad Hoc Committee on Athletics and Academics 33 Report for Faculty Senate | Spring 2016 Table 24
Football Stadia by Capacity - Sun Belt
Capacity Institution Capacity Football Rank Football (largest to smallest)
1 South Alabama (Off Campus) 40,646
2 Louisiana-Lafayette 31,000
3 Arkansas State 31,000
4 Louisiana-Monroe 30,427
5 New Mexico State (leaving) 30,343
6 Texas State 30,000
7 Troy University 30,000
8 Georgia State 28,155
9 Georgia Southern 24,300
10 Appalachian State 24,150
11 EKU 20,000
12 Idaho (leaving) 16,000
13 Coastal Carolina (future 9,400 member)
Conference Average (does not include EKU) 27,115
Table 25
Basketball Arenas by Capacity - Sun Belt
Capacity Basketball Rank Institution Capacity (largest to smallest) Basketball
1 Idaho (leaving) 16,000
2 Louisiana-Lafayette 13,500
Ad Hoc Committee on Athletics and Academics 34 Report for Faculty Senate | Spring 2016 3 New Mexico State (leaving) 12,482
4 Arkansas State 10,475
5 South Alabama (Off Campus) 10,041
6 Appalachian State 8,325
7 Texas State 7,200
8 Louisiana-Monroe 7,085
9 EKU 6,500
10 Troy University 5,200
11 Georgia State 3,854
12 Georgia Southern 4,325
13 Coastal Carolina (future member) 3,212
Conference Average (does not include EKU) 9,016
Tables 26-28 provide average football attendance figures for institutions in each conference. These figures offer comparisons for EKU’s own football attendance figures based on home games.
Table 26
Average 2015 Football Game Attendance - Sun Belt
Attendance Institution Average Ranked Most Attendance to Least
1 Arkansas State 23,007
2 Louisiana-Lafayette 21,596
3 Appalachian State 21,459
4 Georgia Southern 20,780
5 Troy University 19,399
6 Texas State 18,166
7 New Mexico State (leaving) 17,486
Ad Hoc Committee on Athletics and Academics 35 Report for Faculty Senate | Spring 2016 8 South Alabama (Off Campus) 16,039
9 Louisiana-Monroe 11,732
10 Idaho (leaving) 11,653
11 Georgia State 10,347
12 EKU 10,350
13 Coastal Carolina (future 9,163 member)
Conference Average (does not include EKU) 16,735
Table 27
Average 2015 Football Game Attendance - MAC
Attendance Ranked Most to Institution Average Least Attendance
1 Ohio 21,323
2 Toledo 20,842
3 Bowling Green 19,608
4 Western Michigan 19,441
5 Buffalo 18,457
6 Akron 18,098
7 Miami (OH) 15,707
8 Central Michigan 15,672
9 Northern Illinois 13,942
10 Kent State 12,561
11 UMass (Off Campus; Pro Stadium) 11,124
11 EKU 10,350
12 Ball State 7,974
13 Eastern Michigan 4,897
Ad Hoc Committee on Athletics and Academics 36 Report for Faculty Senate | Spring 2016 Conference Average (does not include EKU) 15,357
Table 28
Average 2015 Football Game Attendance - OVC
Attendance Institution Average Ranked Most Attendance to Least
1 Jacksonville State 19,368
2 Tennessee State 14,020
3 EKU 10,350
4 Tennessee Tech 6,555
5 Eastern Illinois 5,677
6 Murray State 6,048
7 Austin Peay 4,841
8 Southeast Missouri 4,803
9 UT Martin 4,748
9 Belmont (Non-Football) N/A
10 Morehead State (Non-Football) N/A
11 SIUE (Non-Football) N/A
Conference Average 8,257
VII. Implications, Considerations, and Recommendations for EKU
The implications section is organized into events, priorities, and recommendations. The Committee concludes the report by offering a resolution.
Events
The Ad Hoc Committee on Athletics and Academics recommends providing regular opportunities for faculty input into athletics planning. The Committee recommends the following events to facilitate communication to and among faculty stakeholders:
Ad Hoc Committee on Athletics and Academics 37 Report for Faculty Senate | Spring 2016 ● A focused series of open forums to invite comments and questions from faculty and students with video available after the event(s) ● A public debate (pro/con) to understand the issues involved in the relationship between academics and athletics ● Regular faculty open forums to discuss athletics developments and the ongoing relationship between academics and athletics
Priorities for EKU
The Ad Hoc Committee on Athletics and Academics recommends the following measures to facilitate communication to and among faculty stakeholders:
● Ensure that academic programs are enhanced through developments and decisions with athletics ● Prioritize academic program development at the college, department, and program levels in future athletics plans and planning ● Identify and communicate where EKU aspires to fit into the academic and athletic landscape ● Articulate with faculty input ways in which athletics is a component of the academic mission of the University
Recommendations
Universities that are growing athletics programs are not growing at the cost of academics. They articulate the role that both sides play and ways in which they enhance one another. The University of Pittsburgh, for example, features the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center (UPMC) prominently throughout the football stadium. Pennsylvania State University features its World Campus (online academic programs and degrees) on sidelines at football games. Gains in the profile of athletics programs strategically and intentionally feature academic programs.
While it appears that EKU has outgrown the OVC in its current size, significant financial gaps exist between EKU’s current status and the comparison institutions that have made recent moves to the Sun Belt and the FBS conferences studied for this report (including MAC and CUSA). According to the results of the student survey conducted for this report, students prioritize academic programs and costs in their decision to enroll at EKU. While the number of student reporting athletics programs as an important reason for enrolling at EKU is not insignificant--and cannot be overlooked--any decisions regarding athletics should consider the priority of academics and a related consideration of tuition and fees. Students at the comparison institutions are paying significantly higher athletic fees.
While it appears that a move to the FBS right now would present challenges, it is possible for the University to bring athletics and academics sides together to envision ways in which any possible future moves would ensure that both sides are successful. These conversations would also need to consider what students in this sample articulated as priorities in their decision to
Ad Hoc Committee on Athletics and Academics 38 Report for Faculty Senate | Spring 2016 attend EKU and the implications a future possible move to an FBS conference could have on potential student applicants, balanced with faculty teaching, scholarship, and service loads.
VIII. Resolution
Resolution on the relationship between athletics and academics at EKU.
Whereas, EKU’s academic profile ● Includes lower ACT scores than benchmark institutions; and ● Involves students who prioritize academic programs; and ● Involves students who value low tuition costs; and
Whereas, there is evidence but not strong evidence of ● Athletics increasing enrollment; and ● Athletics increasing applications to the University; and ● Athletics increasing donations to the University; and ● Athletics increasing ACT and SAT scores of student applicants;
Whereas, EKU is a large institution for the OVC and yet smaller institution compared to the Sun Belt and MAC institutions in the following ways ● Enrollment ● Program size ● Athletics budget; now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That
● The University will ensure that academic programs are enhanced through developments and decisions with athletics. ● The University will prioritize academic program development at the college, department, and unit levels in future athletics plans and planning. ● The University will identify and communicate where it aspires to fit into the academic and athletic landscape. ● The Athletic Department will articulate--with faculty input--ways in which athletics is a component of the academic mission of the University.
Ad Hoc Committee on Athletics and Academics 39 Report for Faculty Senate | Spring 2016
IX. Appendix
Ad Hoc Committee on Athletics and Academics 40 Report for Faculty Senate | Spring 2016
Annotated Bibliography of Peer-Reviewed Sources
1. Anderson, M. L. (2015). The benefits of college athletic success: An application of the propensity score design. The National Bureau of Economic Research. NBER Working Paper No. 18196.
Anderson estimates the causal effects of college football success using propensity score design, which examines the effects of winning FBS football teams on a university. Results reveal that winning FBS football games increases alumni athletic donations, enhances a school’s reputation, increases the number of applicants and in-state students, reduces acceptance rates, and raises average incoming SAT scores. However, the researchers claim that there is less evidence that success in football translates to donations outside of athletics. Estimates imply that increases in team performance can have economically significant effects on donations to athletics.
2. Aries, E., McCarthy, D., Salovey, P., & Banaji, M. R. (2004). A comparison of athletes and non-athletes at highly selective colleges. Research in Higher Education, 45(6), 577-602.
Aries et al. studied student athletes over four years at a selective liberal arts college and an Ivy League university. The researchers found that students spending 10 or more hours per week in athletic activities had lower entering academic credentials and academic self- assessments than non-athletes, but the academic performance of athletes was not below what would be expected based on their entering profiles.
3. Batley, J. W. (2011). Athletic Academic Reform: Does the Level of Spending on Academic Services by Athletic Departments affect the Academic Progress Rates of Revenue Sports? University of Kentucky. UKnowledge.
Examines relationship between spending on academic services per student-athlete on APR. Batley reports that small increases in athletic spending may not affect APR improvement. Higher levels of spending on academic services are more likely to result in increasing results.
4. Charles, C. (2010). Alumni donations and college athletics: A new look. (unpublished), Rutgers University Newark, N.J.
Major effects on alumni donations are beyond institutional control (unemployment, public or private, existing enrollment–though increasing enrollment does bring more donations). However, success in athletics (hockey) does have modest (0.5% for 1% better performance) positive effects on alumni giving. (Comparison: a 1% increase in unemployment leads to a 7.8% decrease). Increasing alumni and enrollment has a composite 5.73% increase.
Ad Hoc Committee on Athletics and Academics 41 Report for Faculty Senate | Spring 2016 5. Chesslock, J., Knight, D. B. (2015). Diverging revenues, cascading expenditures, and ensuing subsidies: The unbalanced and growing financial strain of intercollegiate athletics on universities and their students. Journal of Higher Education, 86(3) (may/June).
Some institutions raise a lot of money from external sources on account of their athletics programs. Other institutions have to use own-source funds to keep up, resulting in subsidies to athletics from non-athletic parts of the institution. Outside revenue landed most heavily on the top FBS schools. There is evidence for each step in the sequence, but not as much for connecting the steps in the sequence.
6. Chung, J. (2013). The Flutie effect: How athletic success boosts college applications. Forbes, April 29. Retrieved April 25, 2016, from http://www.forbes.com/sites/hbsworkingknowledge/2013/04/29/the-flutie-effect-how-athletic- success-boosts-college-applications/#138904d56ac9
There’s no surprise that college enrollments go up after winning big games. The expectation is that this is mostly lower-quality students who might be more interested in the athletics. In fact, the effect is widespread across all levels of quality. Athletics are a major form of advertising for universities (though not exclusively, Boston College attributed their success to improved residence halls, financial aid and facilities). Other issues can have a Flutie-like effect, and the best students are attracted by good academic programs in addition to athletic ones (decrease tuition ~4% and increase faculty pay, and therefore quality, by 5%).
7. Desrochers, D. (2013). Academic Spending Versus Athletic Spending: Who Wins? Findings from the Delta Cost Project. Washington, DC: Delta Cost Project at American Institutes for Research. Retrieved from http://www.deltacostproject.org/analyses/delta_reports.asp.
In big spending schools, where does the money go? Everywhere. The Power Conferences just spend more money on everything. They do spend more, as a share, on athletics, but they also just plain spend more. The money comes from student fees and some subsidy –Desrochers doesn’t say so, but as was indicated by Chesslock and Knight, only the largest FBS teams are possibly self-sustaining. Desrochers does note that the subsidies get worse as you go down in size.
8. Frank, R. (2004). Challenging the myth: A review of the links among college athletic success, student quality, and donations. Knight Foundation Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics.
Asks whether successful college athletic programs stimulate additional applications from prospective students and greater contributions by alumni and other donors. The article concludes that any such effects, if they exist at all, are small. “Empirical literature,” he says, “provides not a shred of evidence to suggest that an across-the-board cutback in spending on athletics would reduce either donations by alumni or applications by prospective students.” The
Ad Hoc Committee on Athletics and Academics 42 Report for Faculty Senate | Spring 2016 author therefore recommends policies that would create “incentives for all institutions to reduce their spending on big-time athletic programs” to free up resources for other purposes.
9. Getz, M., & Siegfried, J. (2010). What does intercollegiate athletics do to or for colleges and universities? Vanderbilt University, Department of Economics, No. 10-W05.
Concerns the benefits to universities from supporting big-time televised college sports, including government support, philanthropy, admissions. Concludes that winning sports teams stimulate private donations to successful schools but that the effects appear to be small, and result primarily from the appearance of football teams in post-season bowl games. The evidence for attracting more applications following athletic achievements is equivocal and there is little effect on the academic credentials of classes enrolled after athletic achievements. In terms of the athletes themselves and other students, there are conflicting implications for the intellectual atmosphere and achievements of university students. Authors lament that “virtually no attention” has been given to the opportunity cost accompanying athletic spending. It is not clear where the donations and students come from, nor is it clear if the reallocation of these resources is efficient and equitable. In the end, “the net social welfare and equity implications of any indirect effects of college sports on the institutions that host big-time intercollegiate teams really remain unknown.”
10. Jones, D.C. (1998). Bridging the Gap Between Academics & Athletics. Strategies, 11(4), 9- 28.
Addresses the stereotypes that student athletes are inferior students and that athletics contribute to the academic inferiority of student athletes. Presents data from University of Wisconsin-Whitewater to show that student athletes did not select easier majors, did not have inferior grades, and did graduate at a high rate. Outlines procedures whereby athletics administrators disseminated this data, listened to faculty concerns, and developed programs and awards that integrated academics and athletics. The author believes the key to UWW’s success is “open communication” between athletic directors and faculty, which resulted in the faculty understanding that “academic excellence and graduation are being integrated with a valuable extracurricular activity.”
11. Leiendecker, G. (2014). Examining relationships between athletic department finances, athletic success, and academic success among NCAA Division I FBS institutions. Master’s thesis, University of North Carolina.
Examines relationships between competitive success and student-athlete academic success with athletic spending and revenue generation. Finds “statistically significant relationships between relative competitive success, student-athlete academic success, and multiple department-wide and revenue sport-specific financial variables.” The author argues that increased spending leads to “increases in broad-based athletic success.” He also suggests that investment in revenue sports is especially beneficial. He finds no inverse relationship between academic success and athletic success.
Ad Hoc Committee on Athletics and Academics 43 Report for Faculty Senate | Spring 2016
12. Litan, R., Orszag, J., & Orszag, P. The empirical effects of collegiate athletics: An interim report. NCAA, 2003.
Examines the financial effects of college athletics. The analysis “fails to find robust empirical support for either the Flutie effect or claims that expanded athletic programs involve substantial financial losses.” In other words, increased athletic spending is “neither the road to riches nor the road to financial ruin.” Moving up to Division I-A, was also presented as a mixed bag. Two schools saw increased net football revenue after moving up, but one experienced a net decline.
13. Maisel, I. (May 15, 2003). Success in Academics and Athletics. ESPN.com. Retrieved from http://espn.go.com/ on December 1, 2015.
This news article argues that universities which are known to be prestigious academically are also able to be successful athletically if they push athletic success and recruit nationally.
14. McCormick, R.E., and Tinsley, M. (1987). Athletics versus academics? Evidence from SAT Scores. Journal of Political Economy, 95(5), 1103-1116.
This article looks at the average SAT scores of incoming freshmen as a function of several variables (student-to-faculty ratio, tuition, library volumes, etc.). Of special interest is a dummy variable which is given the value of one if the school is in a “major” conference (the high-end FBS schools). The correlations are found for a single year (1971) and also for a range of fifteen years. The authors find that being in a major athletic conference is correlated with higher SAT scores for incoming freshman. Also, as football winning percentage increases, so do SAT scores (though the result is marginally significant).
15. Mixon, Jr., F. G., Treviño, L. J., and Minto, T. C. (2004). Touchdowns and test scores: Exploring the relationship between athletics and academics. Applied Economics Letters, 11, 421-424.
The authors include football winning percentage as an independent variable in determining the average SAT scores of incoming freshmen. The paper looks at “major” conference schools only during the 1990s. They find that an increase in a university’s winning percentage in football does increase the SAT scores. The amount is actually very small, however.
16. Orszag, J. M., & Orszag, P. R. (2005). Empirical Effects of Division II Intercollegiate Athletics. Study commissioned by the National Collegiate Athletic Association.
The authors include a section of their report to the NCAA where they look at the universities which had moved from Division II up to Division I. Looking only at financial data, they find that net deficits from athletics increased for every one of the universities. They did not find support that enrollment increased to compensate.
Ad Hoc Committee on Athletics and Academics 44 Report for Faculty Senate | Spring 2016
17. Prewett, H.R. (2014). The arms race in College Athletics: Facility spending and its relationship to College Athletics and University Communities. Accounting Undergraduate Honors Theses. Paper 7.
This thesis looks at the correlations among a number of variables related to athletic financial data, athletic performance, athletic facility usage, number of athletes, and institutional factors (such as reputation, enrollment, etc.). The author found that spending on football was most impactful on other variables and that spending on athletic infrastructure was most prevalent at major athletic institutions. Of particular relevance, the author found that the institutional variables were not highly correlated with spending on athletic facilities.
18. Sandy, R. (2007). The Economics of US Intercollegiate Sports and the NCAA. Handbook on the Economics of sport. Eds. Edited by Wladimir Andreff and Stefan Szymanski. Edward Elgar Publishing. Northampton, MA. 389-397.
Sandy examines the image benefits and problems of intercollegiate sports. In this chapter, Sandy debates the economic benefits of major college athletics. Sandy offers perspective on the connection between the NCAA and individual academic institutions.
19. Sandy, R., & Sloane, P. (2004). Why do U.S. colleges have sports programs? Economics of college sports. Eds. John Fizel and Rodney Fort. Praeger. Westport, CT. 87-109.
Athletes bring friends and fans, the advertising benefits, potentially monetary benefits, enrollment benefits (increases with ranking). However, improving the university in any way tends to predict an increase in athletic rank. That is, athletic rank is a normal good–as schools have more students and better students and so forth, they also rank up athletically. This is also supported by the evidence that schools do rank up over time. The authors also suggest that more organized sports among children and teens in recent years (also the result of us all getting rich) might be driving expectations of the colleges, too.
20. Scott, B. M., Thomas S., Paskus, Michael Miranda, Todd A. Petr, John J. McArdle. (2008). In-Season vs. Out-Of-Season Academic Performance of College Student-Athletes. Journal of Intercollegiate Sports, 1, 202-226.
There is a commonly held belief within the intercollegiate athletics community that student- athletes perform better academically during their season of athletics competition than they do outside the season of competition. The thought is that the structured nature of the playing season leads to more structure in student-athletes’ academic lives and better academic performance. However, it is difficult to find empirical studies supporting this belief. A series of three studies was conducted to assess whether there is a difference in the grade-point average and credits earned of student-athletes in their season of competition vs. their off-season. These three studies are distinguished by NCAA membership division (Division I, Division II or Division III) and the specific nature of the data available in each of those divisions. The Division
Ad Hoc Committee on Athletics and Academics 45 Report for Faculty Senate | Spring 2016 III study served as a pilot and examined over 3,000 student-athlete records at eight schools. The Division II study included nearly 12,000 student-athletes at 92 schools, and the Division I study involved analysis of a census of Division I student-athletes at over 325 colleges and universities followed term-by-term for up to four years. The separate divisional studies came to similar conclusions. Generally, the academic performance of student-athletes was shown to be better outside the season of competition than during the season—contrary to the conventional wisdom. The negative in-season effects were stronger in sports known to have high in-season time demands (e.g., Division I football, baseball and softball) and among student-athletes who entered college less well prepared academically.
21. Sternberg, R. J. (n.d.). College athletics: Necessary, not just nice to have. National Association of Colleges and Business Officers. Retrieved April 25, 2016, from http://www.nacubo.org/Business_Officer_Magazine/Business_Officer_Plus/Bonus_Material/Col lege_Athletics_Necessary_Not_Just_Nice_to_Have.html
Athletics helps develop student leadership. Athletics develop spirit, pride, and loyalty to the institution and build the sense of community on the campus. It creates memories and institutions that tie students to each other. It helps cement relationships with the host community.
22. Vanover, E. T., DeBowes, M. M. (2013). The Impact of Intercollegiate Athletics in Higher Education. Academic Perspectives in Higher Education Journal, 40-63. Retrieved April 25, 2016, from http://education.odu.edu/efl/docs/IntercollegiateAthleticsInHigherEducation.pdf
The place of athletics in American higher education has been defended and criticized for well over one hundred years (Camp, 1893). Having become such a popular cultural attraction and tradition, as well as a potential method of generating revenue, the role of college athletics has broadened beyond a student-oriented activity. This article reviews the different ways intercollegiate athletics influences the reputation, operation, and quality of higher education. Keywords: athletics spending, intercollegiate athletics, higher education National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA).
23. Zoda, T. (2012). Can football buy smarter students?: The effect of athletic spending on football championship subdivision academic institutions. Issues in Political Economy, 21, 82- 116.
There is a mentality across universities that money spent on athletics might be better spent on things that directly impact the academic environment of the institution. For example, in order to better the university one may argue that money spent on upgrading the library is more appropriate than money spent on renovating the stadium. The more general issue is the conflict between spending on academics and athletics in the college environment. Since resources are scarce, colleges need to find the optimal allocation of funds in order to maximize benefits across the institution. Colleges get exposure from their sport teams; but are the
Ad Hoc Committee on Athletics and Academics 46 Report for Faculty Senate | Spring 2016 benefits gained from this exposure enough to justify funneling money away from academics? In addition, do funds spent on athletics really detract from the academic success of its students? More specifically, the research question presented in this paper is: Does money spent on Division I-AA athletics, and specifically football, help increase the prestige of the university by attracting brighter students?
Ad Hoc Committee on Athletics and Academics 47 Report for Faculty Senate | Spring 2016