This was too good not to share. Here is a quote from a story by AZCentral.com about the Pac-12’s effort to exclude Grand Canyon University, a for-profit institution, from competing in NCAA Division I athletics.
Arizona State President Michael Crow said Friday that he welcomes new competition in the Valley from Grand Canyon University but added that he doesn’t believe in competing in athletics against a for-profit university.
On Thursday, Grand Canyon President and CEO Brian Mueller said he believes Crow is leading an effort by Pac-12 CEOs to try to block the school’s move into NCAA Division I athletics.
“It’s about what we want the NCAA to be,” Crow said. “We support any reform possible to enhance the value of the scholar-athletes and meeting higher academic standards. It’s challenging enough to balance academics and athletics. We are against using athletics as a mechanism to make profits. It’s contrary to what we’re trying to do.”
You can’t make this stuff up.
7/22/13 Supplement: See this article in Inside Higher Ed.
Finding My College 
Neh — as of 2011 or 2012, only 23 Div. 1 schools in the country (or about 7%) made a profit from college sports (http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/9236478/ncaa-fbs-schools-spending-more-make). You’re criticizing the non-profits and treating for profits with kid gloves when they graduate only 30% of their students (http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=40) and are the ones who are failing first (See this article on Chancellor: http://chronicle.com/blogs/ticker/chancellor-u-a-for-profit-college-in-ohio-will-close-its-doors/62753 and this very recent one about the U of Northern VA, which couldn’t even get it together enough to get accredited: http://chronicle.com/blogs/ticker/virginia-orders-unaccredited-u-of-northern-virginia-to-shut-down/63441?cid=pm&utm_source=pm&utm_medium=en).
There’s really no reason to draw any kind of equal sign between for-profits and non-profits, at least not nationally. You very rightly advise students to worry about financial stability and graduation rates — now be honest enough to admit that for-profit institutions have the worst on both counts (even U. Phoenix only has half the enrollment it did three years ago) and advise students to run away from for-profit institutions first.
Only 23 Div. I schools REPORT a profit. That’s different than only 23 actually earning a profit. Higher ed accounting is notoriously fuzzy (a kind characterization). Moreover, not all benefits (e.g., intangibles and indirect monetary benefits) get logged on an income statement.
More importantly, the issue is whether a particular institution should be barred from competing simply because of its ownership and governance structure. Basing a denial of an institution’s right to compete (more precisely, the right of students at that institution to compete) on Mr. Crow’s arguments is laughable (again, a kind characterization).
Yes, reporting is an issue, but both the NCAA and IRS have been coming down on these abuses by non-profits across the boards. In terms of program costs, though, I would think intangibles in college sports are pretty much income going out to recruit students, not income coming in.
I’d totally support more financial oversight in higher ed, but do you really think that if only 7% are reporting a profit (or budget surplus — remember, there are no “profits” at a non-profit institution because there are no “owners” who can take profit out of it — surpluses stay within the institution) that so many more are still making one? Sticking to Ohio, I can see OSU making a lot of money on licensing, but I don’t see that happening for a school like U Toledo or BGSU.
Another big difference between non-profits and for-profits is alumni support, and many of these alumni give particularly to sports programs.