Last week, the Athletics Review Committee presented a set of proposals for review by President Ruth Simmons and the Corporation. Among its recommended policy changes, the committee suggested cutting four athletic teams — men's wrestling, women's skiing and men and women's fencing — and increasing the overall athletics budget by 10 percent. The debate over these proposals has grown fierce and emotional.
This is an extremely difficult issue with severe personal costs. We empathize with current team members, coaches and recruits, all of whom might lose teams that largely define their lives at Brown. We hope students, faculty and alums will treat this debate with tact and respect for all involved.
The committee's decision comes at a crossroads of sorts for University athletics. Brown currently has the most athletic teams in the Ivy League, 37, yet simultaneously spends the least amount on athletes. Further, Brown teams generate the least revenue out of any Ivy institution. Ultimately, there are too few resources spread around too many teams. The Herald has documented the negative consequences — low coach salaries, limited funding for recruits who need financial aid and poor on-the-field performance. Given the tough economic times, the committee was tasked with a difficult decision.
Some might find focusing on revenue is the wrong way to frame the debate. A main purpose of athletics is to appeal to the diverse interests of students, generate school spirit and create competitive outlets for top athletes in a wide range of sports. Athletics is important as a major extracurricular arena.
Yet this is ultimately an issue of competitiveness — and thus revenue. The theory goes as follows: If the University both cuts teams and increases the athletics budget, more resources will be concentrated for fewer teams. Therefore, teams can hire better coaches, recruit more students who require financial aid and improve performance, which in turn will increase revenue, mostly through alumni donations. This is a risky and tenuous argument.
Calculating revenue streams for athletics is difficult. The University has not released statistics on athletics revenue, because it is very hard to ascertain how athletics are responsible for certain donations. It is unclear if increasing the athletics budget will result in added revenue. More importantly, though, raising the budget for athletics is a poor use of important University resources.
These are extremely difficult economic times — Brown is attempting to jump-start its worthy Student Activities Endowment, students have seen yet another tuition hike, and a plurality of them think the University's highest priority should be increasing financial aid, according to last month's Herald poll. To increase the athletics budget by 10 percent — all the while delivering a huge blow to students, recruits, coaches and alums by eliminating four teams — is problematic, particularly given how unproven this revenue-generating logic is.
Even if it were certain that our athletic teams would become competitive with increased funding, there are better ways to allocate this money. We urge the Corporation to reconsider allocating funding to an athletics budget and instead address Brown's most pressing needs.
Editorials are written by The Herald's editorial page board. Send comments to editorials@browndailyherald.com.
