But they still want the academic side to pay them $2.4M for special athlete only tutoring. Funny how Eric Roedl and Rob Mullens managed to keep this new revenue a secret from the UO Senate for so long. To put $115M in perspective, UO’s projected spending next year – including athletics – is $901M. UO’d ratio of athletic/academic spending is far, far above other schools.
Andy Greif has a first cut at the newly released USA Today data, here.
Those wanting to dig into it more can read the OUS audit, here, or some of my many past posts on this here.
Astounding. And rock on, Andrew Greif — there are still a few good reporters left that haven’t been seduced by … uh … “them”.
Love this bit when talking in relation to profit: “Its expenses rose for the third straight year, as well, and were $5.2 million more than its 2012 expenses. That jump was largely due to a rise in coaching salaries …” Aww … rising expenses? Sad news for the elitists and their players with sick on campus behavior, especially at unfortunate times. (We’re pointing to you, Altman.)
WHEN is this going to get the serious, righteous administration it needs? Let’s hope Canzano, Forde and others will follow-up.
Greif is just pointing at the annual piece USA Today produces on this subject. And he, and most importantly everyone else in attendance at the recent press conferences (particularly the non-sportswriter journalists) did a laughably poor job insisting on actual answers from Gotfredson, Mullens, Holmes, and Altman. Let’s save that praise for the time being.
My praise of Greif stands. At least he’s reporting, whether it’s “the annual piece”, or not.
I am not surprised at the increase. I have mentioned in various venues that the UO should have a policy of not fielding more teams than the minimum required by NCAA for membership in the highest Division,1A, I believe. But over the years the Athletic dept has added more teams, going well beyond the minimum, so costs rise. I have suggested putting limits when I was in the Intercollegiate Athletic Committee and this yea I have made similar suggestions to recent and present senators, and present Senate president. But no discussion ensue. We could do more to bring this issue to the fore, and not just let the Athletic Dept keep expanding. The JH administration could have put the lid on this, but of course doesn’t want to mess with athletics, and just let academics pay for student athlete tutoring. Richard Sundt
Perhaps it would be more beneficial to the student body as a whole if, rather than trimming the number of sports offered, they expanded the number of sports offered, but spent less on each sport. This would give more students the opportunity to participate in intercollegiate athletics. For the cost of one assistant basketball coach, they could add an entire rowing, water polo, or field hockey team.
And yet the athletic department could not spend a single dollar counseling its basketball players–or anyone, presumably–on responsible behavior with sexuality, alcohol, etc.
Not even with students that have a history of problems in this area. Not a dime.
Let’s be clear: primary responsibility for educating students, including student-athletes, on these issues lies with Student Affairs. and Robin Homes–who should be fired. But surely the athletic department can provide additional education for its players, given its millions in revenue.
So what happens with the $20mill. in annual profit? Will they go into Moffit’s reserves, AD’s reserves, UO Foundation’s accounts or is there a liquid well for the next CBA?