“Balancing the recruiting budget,” whatever “recruiting budget” means

Commentator emuhomer31 posted a link to this ESPN piece, “Balancing the recruiting budget,” in the comments on a post about the clericals asking folks to boycott a picnic; I thought the article was interesting enough to merit it’s own post, so here it is.

First off, I agree with the sentiment emuhomer31 had in his/her comment on the clerical post.  A lot of these money comparisons really are apples and oranges:  that is, money EMU spends on athletic recruiting, picnics, parking lots, landscaping, building remodels, etc., etc. doesn’t necessarily come from the same place/resource as money EMU spends on salaries and benefits.  That said, I think it’s pretty frustrating to everyone– especially during contract negotiations and especially when the athletic (football) budget is so out of whack– to see us dramatically increasing this budget which really doesn’t need to be that much money.  It’s way more than Western, Central, Ball State, Bowling Green, Akron, and Kent State, that’s for sure.

But the weirdest thing to me about this list is how all over the place it is.  I mean, you have the $230K that EMU spent in 2011 (which is too much) but then you also have Illinois spending $545K (and they’ve been pretty bad in recent years, right?).  And Georgia Tech spent $883K, Alabama spent $980K, and Tennessee spent $1.48 Millon!  I know there’s a big range in “big time” college sports, but these numbers are way way out of whack with each other.

2 responses to ““Balancing the recruiting budget,” whatever “recruiting budget” means

  1. So in these straitened times (some wildly-overcompensated administrator at) EMU *CHOSE* to spend almost twice as much (almost a quarter of a million dollars) as they spent the previous year to recruit football players to come to a losing football program that is part of a nearly $25 million mostly-unsuccessful athletic program, do I understand that correctly? And the Regents sit back smugly and offer no suggestion that this is a) stupid, b) profligate, and c) poor management? In how many ways, from how many multiple angles, does this look sleazy? Now, at contract time, how big a target do the Regents plan on painting on the backs of the administrators involved in those “negotiations?” Saying, “take it or leave it” does not constitute “negotiations.” Disappointing, but certainly not surprising.

  2. Not only is this more money after bad for the EMU big money losing teams, it defies the logic of the almost 100% effective boycott of EMU football and basketball by EMU alumni, staff, students, and faculty. This boycott sends a clear message about the irrelevance of these expensive hobbies to the real EMU, but the message is ignored, year after year, at the top of the EMU food chain. Only education and students suffer as a result.

Leave a Reply