We found a statistically significant positive relationship between membership in Division I-A (the powerhouse schools athletically) and academic reputation. The relationship was pretty strong. Other things equal, a mid-quality school might rank roughly 350 if it were not in Division I-A, but typically would rank around 300 or a little better if it were in Division I-A. Having pretty bigtime football and basketball is associated with a meaningful improvement in perceived academic reputation, as measured by
Forbes and CCAP.
By contrast, schools with lesser athletic prowess (or even non-participation in football) in Division I-AA received no benefit from that status, and those in the lower Division II were actually adversely impacted by their lesser athletic reputation. Seemingly, participation in sports at the highly commercialized and visible upper levels has real payoffs.
That is money that could be spent in other ways that might enhance reputation. Using our own university (
Ohio University) as an example, we asked the question: what would happen if the money used to subsidize athletics went instead to enhance instruction? Instructional spending is positively associated with academic reputation too. It turns out that roughly half the reputational gains from athletic participation are wiped out from the reduced spending on academics. In the case of some schools, it would likely completely wipe those gains out. And, of course, the statistical estimations are just that, estimates, and are average behavioral responses – some schools will perform better, but others worse, than the average.
