Tuesday, November 20, 2012

On Maryland, Rutgers, and the "Benefits" of Their Big Ten Memberships

So, word is that the University of Maryland and Rutgers University are joining the Big Ten (or whatever it is called now) conference, and amid all of the discussion regarding the pros and cons of these moves, regarding the reasons why the moves are happening, and regarding the various kinds of ramifications for the moves, we have this story by Sports Illustrated's Andy Staples that sums up the case for Maryland's move (and, I think, by extension, much of the same would be applied to Rutgers).

As Staples notes, the University of Maryland -- like many other state universities around the country -- is facing drastic budget cuts that affect programs throughout the university, including college athletics.  So, the move to the Big Ten for Maryland's athletic programs will presumably help the athletic department pay for itself and thus not be as reliant on the university's budget.  As Staples notes, this means the athletic department will be able to "meet its budget without taking more money from taxpayers or students."  So, this sounds like a pretty good argument, right?  For all us critics of big-time college athletics, this takes away much of our case, right?  After all, now at places like Maryland and Rutgers, athletics won't draw money from the university, and that money could be used for other things.  Indeed, as Staples notes, "Some schools in big-revenue conferences such as the Big Ten and the SEC actually give money back to the academic side after balancing their budgets."  Heck, can't beat that they'll actually give back, right?

Well, yeah, you see, I think we can beat that.  To do, so let's see how this new scenario looks at a place such as the University of Maryland.

Let's say Maryland athletics make so much money that they contribute a few million dollars -- heck, even 10 or 20 million dollars -- back into the budget.  Even the high end of that range ($20 million) does not equal half of the $50 million budget cuts with which the University of Maryland system was threatened this past spring.  And, remember, Staples says that "some" Big Ten programs give money back to their universities--not all.  And I would get the feeling that places like Ohio State and Michigan are more likely to be the "some" than places like Rutgers and Maryland.  Still, even if a place such as Maryland does give back, it's not making up for the cuts other parts of the university are facing.  So, athletics at a place like Maryland grows, while other parts of the university suffer and shrink (although apparently not the president's house), and at best athletics provides slight assistance in warding off some of that suffering an shrinking.

Meanwhile, there is another alternative.  We could take all of the money we spend on athletics -- and especially football, since it's the sport that's driving this -- and spend it instead on funding education.  Given estimates of revenues that the athletic department at a place like Maryland will generate based on joining the Big 10, if we applied all that money to other aspects of the university -- buying tickets for events at the university that support academic programs, donating it for education and attending a two or three hour reception for donors rather than a two-hour basketball game or three-hour football game, giving money and time spent on college sports to student support services at the university, and so on -- we would more than make up that threatened $50 million budget cut.  (And, by the way, doesn't look just like another amount that's prominent in the University of Maryland's move to the Big Ten -- i.e., the amount they are asked to pay to leave the Atlantic Coast Conference in order to join the Big Ten?)  Tuition would not have to rise, and folks would not have to be asked for more tax money to support higher education. 

As I've argued before, and I continue to argue, this is a matter of priorities.  If we're going to continue down the road of less state support for college education, forcing collegiate programs of all sorts to find other ways to fund themselves amid the marketplace (a model that I find problematic, but that's a discussion for another time), then our choices as consumers in that marketplace really, really matter.  And despite how deeply so many of us have become socialized to participate in the support of college football and other big-time college athletics, we have to start resisting through the choices that we make if we are going to have worthwhile, effective, and accessible higher education.  We need to change our priorities, and I think that starts with giving up college football.  College football is what's driving conference expansion, and college football is driving too much of the ship at too many universities.  I've already made the choice to give it up, and today, while reading about Maryland and Rutgers joining the Big Ten, I'm even more resolved in the idea that I made the right one.