GENDER EQUITY COST-BENEFITS SCORECARD Charles L. Kennedy Senior Instructor in Political Science Penn State York August 2010
The Eastern Michigan Eagles of the Mid-American Conference were national champions in the first annual Gender Equity Cost-Benefits Scorecard. The Texas Tech Red Raiders of the Big 12 Conference scored highest for the six major conference schools and ranked third nationally. The purpose of this study is to evaluate how well the colleges are doing in providing financial support for the female athletes and their teams. Essentially, a cost benefit analysis was conducted comparing total athletic spending per female athlete with total athletic spending per male athletic. The 116 colleges included in the study were from the 11 Football Bowl Series (FBS) conferences. They were divided into the six major conferences (Big 12, Big Ten, PAC-10, SEC, ACC, and Big East) and the five mid-major conferences (Mountain, West, WAC, MAC, Conference USA, and the Sun Belt). There were two primary reasons for this division: (a) this is the differentiation and the terminology that the news media regularly employ and (b) the enormous difference in athletic expenditures by the major conferences and the mid-major conferences. All of the data in the study was obtained from the Chronicle of Higher Education in its study on gender equity in 2008. All of the statistics were based on the data submitted to the U.S. Department of Education, as required by the Equity in Athletics Disclosure Act of 1994. The athletic/academic year of 2006-07 was selected as the initial year of this four-year study, since the data has already been classified and analyzed in my most recent studies: The Glass Ceiling Report Card III evaluated how well these 116 colleges were doing in hiring female coaches as head coaches and assistant coaches for women s and men s teams. The Gender Equity Scorecard VI evaluated how well the 116 colleges were doing in complying with the spirit and intent of Title IX. The study was based on the five criteria of participation, scholarship, operating expenses, recruitment budget, and coaches salaries. (These studies may be viewed at www2.yk.psu.edu/~clk8articles.) The application of the cost benefit analysis was really quite simple. It consisted of dividing the amount of money spent per male athlete by the amount of money spent per female athlete. For instance, for the national champion Eastern Michigan Eagles, the Eagles had 17 teams-7 male and 10 female. Of 626 total athletes, 376 males and 250 females. They spent $14,583,000 (expenditures were rounded to the thousand for convenience). The Eagles spent $8,472 thousand on the men s teams, which equals $22,532 per male athlete. They spent $6,110 on the women s teams which equals $24,440 per female athlete. The ratio is $0.92. Thus, for every dollar spent on a female athlete, only $0.92 were spent on a male athlete. The Eagles were one of only three schools in the country, who actually spent more money per female athlete than a male athlete. Contrast this with the Oklahoma State Aggies who spent $3.50 per male athlete for every dollar spent on a female athlete. The Aggies ranked last in the entire country. The Western Kentucky Hilltoppers of the Sun Belt Conference ranked second in the nation with a gender equity cost-benefits ratio of $0.95. Texas Tech was the third school to spend more money per female athlete than a male athlete. The Red Raiders scored highest for the major conferences and ranked third nationally. The Red Raiders score was $0.99.
THE TOP TEN The 116 colleges were scored and graded on a scale of A-F. The Scorecard was based on the data for the 2006-07 athletic/academic year submitted by the colleges to the U.S. Department of Education, as required by the Equity in Athletics Disclosure Act of 1994. The distribution of grades for the six major and five mid-major conferences is contained in the following chart. DISTRIBUTION OF GRADES* Number of Schools Number of Schools Grade Scale Major Conferences Mid-Major Conferences A $1.50 & lower 10 16 B $1.51-2.00 20 23 C $2.01-2.50 16 8 D $2.51-3.00 13 2 F $3.01-3.50 7 1 TOTAL 66 50 *(Money spent per male athlete for every dollar spent per female athlete.) From the above chart it is obvious that the mid-majors, who have considerably less money to spend, are devoting more of their limited resources to their female athletes. The other key point to note is that the grading scale is quite generous in the allocation of the A s and B s. For the major conferences in addition to the Texas Tech Red Raiders, the other members of the Top Ten in order are the Stanford Cardinal, Missouri Tigers, Baylor Bears, Mississippi Rebels, Nebraska Cornhuskers, Mississippi State Bulldogs, Georgia Tech Yellow Jackets, Duke Blue Devils, and the California Golden Bears. All of these schools received an A on the scorecard, as did the eleventh ranked Illinois Fighting Illini. These schools are definitely allocating a reasonably high proportion of the athletic expenditure pie to their female athletes. The score, grade, and rank for the 66 colleges in the major conferences may be found in Appendix I. For the mid-major conferences in addition to the Eastern Michigan Eagles and the Western Kentucky Hilltoppers, the other members of the Top Ten in order are the Florida Atlantic Owls, Utah State Aggies, Middle Tennessee Blue Raiders, Central Michigan Chippewas, Louisiana Tech Bulldogs, Troy Trojans, Southern Mississippi Golden Eagles, and Idaho Vandals. All of these schools plus six others received an A grade. (The score, grade, and rank for the 50 colleges in the mid-major conferences may be found in Appendix II. The scores for the Top Ten in the major and mid-major conferences are listed in the following chart.
TOP TEN MAJORS MID-MAJORS Rank Team Score Rank Team Score 1 Texas Tech $0.99 1 Eastern Michigan $0.92 2 Stanford 1.36 2 Western Kentucky 0.98 3 Missouri 1.39 3 Florida Atlantic 1.01 4 Baylor 1.40 4 Utah State 1.10 5 Mississippi 1.42 5 Middle Tennessee 1.16 5 Nebraska 1.42 6 Central Michigan 1.20 7 Mississippi State 1.45 7 Louisiana Tech 1.23 8 Georgia Tech 1.46 8 Troy 1.26 9 Duke 1.48 9 Southern Mississippi 1.30 10 California 1.49 10 Idaho 1.32 Interestingly, four of the Top Ten for the majors are in the Big 12. The Sun Belt conference paces the mid-major conferences also with four, closely followed by the WAC with three. It should also be emphasized that all of the teams ranked third through eleventh among the mid-majors would rank higher than the second ranked Stanford Cardinal for the major conferences. It is also important to note the schools in the Bottom 10 of the spectrum. For the majors seven of the 66 schools received an F and three received a D. Four were from the ACC. For the 50 mid-majors there were eight with a C, one with a D, and two received an F. (Note: Two teams tied for the rank of 40 th. Five of the schools were from the WAC and four from the Mountain West. The scores for the Bottom Ten in the major and mid-major conferences are listed in the following chart. BOTTOM TEN MAJORS MID-MAJORS Rank Team Score Grade Rank Team Score Grade 57 UCLA $ 2.87 D 40 TCU $ 2.02 C 57 Clemson 2.87 D 40 New Mexico 2.02 C 59 Boston College 2.94 D 42 Nevada 2.15 C 60 South Florida 3.09 F 43 UNLV 2.19 C 60 Iowa 3.09 F 44 San Diego State 2.27 C 62 West Virginia 3.16 F 45 BYU 2.29 C 63 Miami 3.17 F 46 Hawaii 2.39 C 64 Virginia Tech 3.48 F 47 North Texas 2.40 C 64 Michigan State 3.48 F 48 Boise State 2.80 D 66 Oklahoma State 3.50 F 49 Fresno State 3.22 F 50 Memphis 3.33 F An examination of the above chart emphasizes the previously mentioned point that the schools in the midmajor conferences are allocating a significantly higher proportion of the athletic expenditure pie to their female athletes. Not only did eight of the mid-major schools receive a C, all of those schools would rank higher than the 45 th ranked Ohio State Buckeyes for the major conferences. Those schools are actually higher than 22 of the major colleges.
Additionally, only three of the mid-majors received a D or an F grade, whereas, twenty of the major schools did. This is 6 percent compared to 30 percent. It is fairly obvious that schools with a D or an F need to give serious consideration toward a redistribution of their athletic expenditure wealth in a much fairer and equitable manner for their female athletes. CONFERENCE CHAMPIONS Special recognition should also go to the conference champions. My previous studies, The Gender Equity Scorecard series and The Glass Ceiling Report Card series indicated a high degree of consistency and continuity the teams at the top or near the top tended to stay there over several years. It will be interesting to observe if this phenomenon will also prevail in future Gender Equity Cost-Benefits Scorecards. See the following chart for the conference champions, their score, grade, and national rank. Conference College Score Grade National Rank Majors (Majors Only) Big 12 Texas Tech $0.99 A 1 Big Ten Illinois 1.50 A 11 PAC-10 Stanford 1.36 A 2 SEC Mississippi 1.42 A 5 ACC Georgia Tech 1.46 A 8 Big East Notre Dame 1.82 B 20 Mid-Majors (Mid-Majors Only) Mountain West New Mexico $1.57 B 17 WAC Utah State 1.10 A 4 MAC Eastern Michigan 0.92 A 1 Conf. USA Southern Mississippi 1.30 A 9 Sun Belt Western Kentucky 0.98 A 2 In contrast to these conference champions, there are the colleges in the bottom of the conference basements. As mentioned before in my previous studies regarding the tendency of the conference champions to repeat, there also tended to be a consistency of the cellar dwellers to repeat, although not as pronounced. The conference cellar dwellers with their score, grade, and national rank are listed in the following chart. Conference Team in Last Place Score Grade National Rank (lowest = 66) Majors Big 12 Oklahoma State $3.50 F 66 Big Ten Michigan State 3.48 F 64 PAC-10 UCLA 2.87 D 57 SEC Vanderbilt 2.67 D 52 ACC Virginia Tech 3.48 F 64 Big East West Virginia 3.16 F 62 Mid-Majors (Lowest = 50) Mountain West BYU $2.29 C 45 WAC Fresno State 3.22 F 49 MAC Bowling Green 1.85 B 32
Conf. USA Memphis 3.33 F 50 Sun Belt North Texas 2.40 C 47 It is fairly obvious that the extremes in spending differential are much more glaring with the major conferences. Contrast the top three (Texas Tech, Stanford, and Missouri) with the bottom three (Oklahoma State, Michigan State, and Virginia Tech.) Whereas, the extremes are not as remarkable with the mid-major conferences with the exception of the two lowest Memphis and Fresno State. Two of the cellar dwellers, BYU and North Texas, actually have C grades and are higher than 33 percent of the colleges in the major conferences. Even the Bowling Green Falcons, who finished last in the Mid-American Conference had a B grade with a score of $1.85. The challenge for the Falcons is that everybody in the conference received an A or a B grade. There were six colleges with an A and six with a B. CONCLUSION During the course of this study, it became obvious that three other variables needed to be included in the equation: (1) the size of the total athletic budgets, (2) the number of athletic teams, and (3) the number of female athletes. For the major colleges, I must admit I was very surprised at the huge difference in athletic expenditures between and within conferences. It should be remembered that this is for the 2006-07 academic year. Athletic expenditures have increased significantly since then. Additionally, many schools apparently use different accounting procedures and have different classifications of an athletic expenditure in their annual Equity in Athletics Disclosure Act report. I classified the six major colleges into five categories of expenditures. The Category I were those whose athletic expenditures were over $50 million. The Ohio State Buckeyes were the only team in this category and they were over $60 million. Category II were those who spent between $40 and $50 million. Category III were between $30 and $40 million. Category IV were between $20 and $30 million. Those below $20 million were in the Category V. The five colleges in this category are Washington State, Cincinnati, Mississippi, South Florida, and Mississippi State. It is truly amazing that these schools can be as competitive as they are in their conferences. The number of colleges in each category is contained in the following chart. CLASSIFICATION OF ATHLETIC EXPENDITURES (MAJOR CONFERENCES) Category Range (in millions) Number of Colleges I Over $50 1 II $40-$50 17 III $30-$40 20 IV $20-$30 23 V Below $20 5 Total 66
For the five mid-major conferences there were also five categories. Category A was $25-$30 million. There was only one the TCU Horned Frogs and they were over $30 million. Category B was between $20 and $25 million. The SMU Mustangs and the BYU Cougars were the only teams that met the criteria. Category C was $15-$20 million. Category D was $10-$15 million. Category E was below $10 million. The number of teams per category is contained in the following chart. CLASSIFICATION OF ATHLETIC EXPENDITURES (MAJOR CONFERENCES) Category Range (in millions) Number of Colleges A $25-$30 1 B $20-$25 2 C $15-$20 13 D $10-$15 26 E Below $10 8 Total 50 It is truly remarkable how many of these schools are able to be competitive against the much better financed teams of the major conferences. This is especially true for the eight colleges in the lowest categories. For instance in the recent Women s World Series in softball in May-June of 2010, the East Carolina Panthers with athletic expenditures of $15.2 million eliminated the perennially powerful Texas Longhorns, who had athletic expenditures of $47.2 million, sixth highest in the country. Even more remarkable is the success of the Louisiana Lafayette Ragin Cajuns with athletic expenditures of $7.08 million, which would rank 114 th of the 116 colleges in the study. They not only eliminated the LSU Tigers (expenditures of $34.8 million and a rank of 16 th ), but also the Texas A&M Aggies (expenditures of $43.8 million and a rank of 8 th ). This is about as David and Goliath as you can get. Do you realize that the USC Trojans, which did not even make the regionals in women s softball, paid their head football coach, the head coach of men s basketball, and their athletic director a total of $7.34 million in 2007-08, which is over $300,000 more than the Ragin Cajuns spent on their entire athletic program in 2006-07. The argument is frequently made that revenue from main revenue producing sports (football and men s basketball) is used by the college to finance many other sports, including women s sports. This is true to a certain extent particularly in the PAC-10 and the Big Ten. In 2006-07 according to the EADA data, the most athletic teams were fielded by Stanford (32) and Ohio State (29). The other teams in the Top Ten for most athletic teams were Boston College (27), Penn State, Rutgers, and California (all with 25), North Carolina (24), Michigan and Maryland (23), and Notre Dame and Duke (22). See the following chart for the listing of teams per school in each conference. The chart also contains the average score and grade of each conference on the Gender Equity Cost-Benefits Scorecard.
Cost-Benefits Average Average Average Number of Rank Conference Score Grade Teams Per School 1 Sun Belt $1.45 A 13.3 2 MAC 1.49 A 16.5 3 Conference USA 1.85 B 15.9 4 Big 12 1.94 B 15.8 5 Mountain West 1.98 B 15.5 6 WAC 2.02 C 14.2 7 PAC-10 2.04 C 19.4 8 SEC 2.06 C 15.8 9 ACC 2.29 C 18.6 10 Big Ten 2.28 C 21 11 Big East 2.42 C 18.4 It should also be noted with the exceptions of the Big Ten and the PAC-10 at the top of the scale and the Sun Belt Conference at the lower end, the mid-major conferences are fairly comparable to the major conferences in the number of athletic teams fielded. It is also interesting to note that there is an enormous range of female athletes at schools in the same conference. For instance in the Big Ten, the Minnesota Golden Gophers were highest with 519 female athletes and the Northwestern Wildcats were lowest with only 236. In the PAC-10 the UCLA Bruins were high with 415 and the Oregon Ducks were low with 163. The same range is comparable in the other major and mid-major conferences. Surprisingly, the range in average number of female athletes per teams in the major and mid-major conferences is much less than anticipated. It is certainly not comparable to the range in expenditures. It is interesting to note that 25 of the 116 colleges in the study had more female athletes than male athletes. Five of these colleges were in the Big Ten: Michigan, Michigan State, Minnesota, Northwestern, and Wisconsin. Four colleges were in the WAC: Fresno State, San Jose State, Hawaii, and Nevada. Three colleges were in the ACC: Boston College, Florida State, and Miami. I intend to include these additional variables of: (1) the size of the total athletic budget, (2) the number of athletic teams, and (3) the number of female athletes into a future Gender Equity Cost-Benefits Scorecard. It is interesting to note that a preliminary analysis indicates the result may be surprising and unexpected.
I. Gender Equity Cost-Benefits Scorecard Majors (Money spent per male athlete for every dollar spent per female athlete.) Grade A Grade C cont d) 1 Texas Tech $ 0.99 40 Minnesota $ 2.22 2 Stanford 1.36 41 Washington 2.28 3 Missouri 1.39 42 Tennessee 2.29 4 Baylor 1.40 43 Auburn 2.30 5 Mississippi 1.42 44 Pitt 2.31 5 Nebraska 1.42 45 Ohio State 2.41 7 Mississippi State 1.45 46 Florida State 2.42 8 Georgia Tech 1.46 Grade D 9 Duke 1.48 47 Alabama 2.51 10 California 1.49 48 UNC 2.52 11 Illinois 1.50 49 Arkansas 2.54 Grade B 50 Kansas 2.57 12 Texas A&M 1.53 51 Kansas State 2.63 13 Wake Forest 1.56 52 Vanderbilt 2.67 14 Washington State 1.58 53 USC 2.69 15 Kentucky 1.66 54 Wisconsin 2.70 16 LSU 1.67 55 Cincinnati 2.84 17 North Carolina State 1.69 56 Louisville 2.85 18 Penn State 1.70 57 UCLA 2.87 19 Iowa State 1.71 57 Clemson 2.87 20 Notre Dame 1.82 59 Boston College 2.94 21 Syracuse 1.84 Grade F 22 Indiana 1.86 60 South Florida 3.09 23 Maryland 1.89 60 Iowa 3.09 24 Colorado 1.90 62 West Virginia 3.16 25 Oregon State 1.91 63 Miami 3.17 26. Rutgers 1.94 64 Virginia Tech 3.48 26 Connecticut 1.94 64 Michigan State 3.48 28 Purdue 1.95 66 Oklahoma State 3.50 29 Virginia 1.97 30 South Carolina 2.00 Grade C 31 Arizona 2.03 31 Oregon 2.03 33 Northwestern 2.04 34 Florida 2.05 35 Texas 2.07 36 Oklahoma 2.11 37 Georgia 2.12 38 Michigan 2.16 38 Arizona State 2.16
II. Gender Equity Cost-Benefits Scorecard Mid-Majors (Money spent per male athlete for every dollar spent per female athlete.) Grade A Grade C 1 Eastern Michigan $ 0.92 40 TCU 2.02 2 Western Kentucky 0.98 40 New Mexico State 2.02 3 Florida Atlantic 1.01 42 Nevada 2.15 4 Utah State 1.10 43 UNLV 2.19 5 Middle Tennessee 1.16 44 San Diego State 2.27 6 Central Michigan 1.20 45 BYU 2.29 7 Louisiana Tech 1.23 46 Hawaii 2.39 8 Troy 1.26 47 North Texas 2.40 9 Southern Mississippi 1.30 Grade D 10 Idaho 1.32 48 Boise State 2.80 11 Louisiana Monroe 1.35 Grade F 11 Buffalo 1.35 49 Fresno State 3.22 13 Kent State 1.36 50 Memphis 3.33 14 Ohio 1.37 15 Akron 1.39 16 Houston 1.49 Grade B 17 Central Florida 1.57 17 New Mexico 1.57 19 Northern Illinois 1.59 20 Louisiana Lafayette 1.60 21 Tulsa 1.62 21 Arkansas State 1.62 23 Western Michigan 1.64 24 Ball State 1.66 25 UTEP 1.70 26 Florida International 1.71 27 Toledo 1.74 27 Tulane 1.74 29 Miami, OH 1.77 30 Wyoming 1.78 31 Colorado State 1.80 32 Bowling Green 1.85 33 Marshall 1.86 34 East Carolina 1.87 35 SMU 1.89 36 Utah 1.91 37 UAB 1.93 38 Rice 1.94 39 San Jose State 1.95