Wednesday, January 12, 2011

What's Wrong With Oklahoma?

As a life-long Texas resident and UT graduate, my answer is "just about everything."

But more specifically,
The OU Board of Regents approved raises for all nine assistant football coaches Oct. 28. At the cream of the crop, Kevin Wilson and Brent Venables received a $45,000 raise, increasing their salaries to $440,000 and $430,000 respectively.

Less than two weeks later, during his State of the University address to the Faculty Senate on Monday, OU President David Boren warned that department heads to prepare for a 5-percent budget cut next year in case state funding for higher education doesn’t match increasing costs.
Admittedly, OU isn't the only university that's increasing spending on its football program while cutting funds on the educational side. But proponents claim some justification for this.

There are 68 schools in the six major conferences that make up the BCS. Only one - Wake Forest - lost money on its football program. The other 67 either broke even or made money.
On average, each team earned $15.8 million last year, or well over $1 million per game.
They posted that jump in combined profit even though revenue rose by only 6% to $2.2 billion. That means the schools had a combined profit margin of 49%...
The University of Texas (ahem...) football program was once again the leader in both revenue, with $94 million, and profit, with $68 million.
At most schools the athletic department is a fiscally self-contained unit, operating under its own budget separate from the rest of the university. The football program usually funds a host of money-losing sports such as soccer, volleyball, swimming, and so forth. But that's still a lot of money being spent on what is basically an entertaining diversion that does little to further the educational mission.

I'm a college football fan. But I also am a college professor. When I see overcrowded classrooms, obsolete equipment, spiraling administrative costs, rising tuition and shrinking faculty support, I start thinking about carts and horses.

Remind me again how the MIT football team did this year...

One final note: it's not just universities that stoke the football machine. Here in pigskin-mad Texas we have a local high school that just spent $800,000 on a hideous red artificial turf football field, while at the same time the school district is struggling with a budget deficit. That gives you some idea of our misplaced priorities.

I could understand it if they went with a traditional green turf, but red?!?!? If the taxpayers don't rise up in revolt over the foolish use of funds, they should at least protest the lack of taste...

1 comment:

JT said...

Several years ago, when my kids still attended the local public school, the district voted to install artificial turf. The price tag was similar to that in your post, but with drainage and other stadium retro-fit issues, it ended up well over $1 million. That was the year that I had to take my daughter to school at 6:30 am each day so she could do her math homework, as they didn't have enough textbooks for everyone to take home.

This is a 3A high school that has an average student to teacher ratio of 17:1. Football player to coach ratio is 3.6 to 1.

I think the question is, 'What is wrong with the public eduction?'.