Investing in the future

UCLA's first football opponent this season should have a pretty good recruiting class.

You'd think so, considering that Tennessee spends more on recruiting athletes than any other school in the nation. In 2006-07, it dropped more than $2 million. Notre Dame was second at about $1.75 million.

With most of the costs going to travel, the median Division 1 program spent $632,600 on all sports recruiting in 2006-07. Twenty-one schools each spent more than $1 million. The findings are published in a report from the Chronicle of Higher Education dated Aug. 1, 2008.

UCLA was close to the median at $641,500. It also had one of the highest percentages spent on recruiting women. About $238,000, or 37% of the recruiting budget, went toward finding female athletes to become Bruins.

Some familiar basketball programs made the top-20 in spending, including Duke, Florida, Ohio State, Syracuse, Texas, Michigan State and Kentucky.

Of the six BCS conferences, the Pac-10 spent the fifth most on recruiting, $8,347,000 — an increase of 80% from 10 years before. Oregon led the league at $1,077,300, the 19th highest in the country.

Comments

[ty]

im all for womens sports but 37% is WAY too much. maybe we should use more of that money to get a better football team, a sport that actually contributes financially to UCLA. womens sports are only a drain on UCLAs finances, they dont bring in any money.

[HAA]

That last comment made me laugh... We should also make the glass ceiling a little stronger, i think it is starting to crack.

[ty]

well, am i right or wrong? how much do the womens programs contribute financially to the university?

[Wyatt]

Should we assume the PAC-10 recruiting figure of $834,700,000 was supposed to be $8,347,000?

[Ed. Note: Yes, that was a type and has been corrected]

[shekib]

37% is too much??? the last two championships added to the 100+ came from womens teams....so im proud of UCLA for being fair and im proud to be a graduate of a university that sees that its not all about mens sports....im a football and basketball fan but the football team has sucked the last 4-5 years and i dont see how you could justify that we should spend more money in it. perhaps with new coach things will change and football will get more money because people would be interested in going and watching it...but i don't believe that we need to sacrifice womens sports so that we could have a better mens sports.
Go Bruins
Class of 2003

[ty]

its nice to have womens championships, but if ur hanging out with ur buddies and talking about who has the most banners, do u say "hey, weve got great womens golf and water polo teams" NO! u never say that, unless u are on the golf or water polo teams. i like the fact that all our teams are competitive as well, but you gotta reinvest in profitable ventures (football and basketball).

[pk-mesa]

most of your titles have come from womens sports

[VA Blueblood]

pk--really? Ok. Prove it.

ty--dude, this is not a good line of reasoning. Here's why:

1) You're assuming a direct relationship between the spending and winning. It's not so cut and dry--just look at Notre Dame!

2) You assume that there's simply one pool of money and DG divvies up the percentage pie first, then hands it out accordingly. I think a more likely assumption is that winning leads to further spending. Women's teams have a proud tradition of success, so the coaches may need to travel further afield to scout a greater pool of talented, interested athletes. Pretend you're DG and the women's water polo coach says to you, "I've won this many times, and I need this much to scout these players, and I believe I will remain #1 in the country by doing so." Are you really going to reply with, "Nope, you got your %, now make due!" No dude. Winning leads to further spending.

3) Do you really truly believe that Neuheisel will EVER ask DG for money to recruit and be denied? Fat chance. Slick Rick will spend exactly what Slick Rick thinks he needs to spend. This is not a problem.

4) Lastly, bro, you are on thin moral ground here. Collegiate athletics is not about profit, and to claim otherwise undermines your standing among supporters. And yeah, you might not brag to your buddies about winning women's sports, but citing that as a reason to spend less is, to put it charitably, archaic. I am proud to be affiliated with the most progressive and successful athletic university in the country, and your sentiments in this regard are personally embarrassing. You think Jackie Robinson would have thought like you do?