The athlete is going to get a scholarship and the booster club is going to help fund it. The only question is how much the booster club pays for each scholarship.

While this certainly seems to make sense on the surface, I feel that the situation is a complex enough that a blanket statement like this should not be considered.

First, most of the athletic scholarships are pre-existing. Do we just say “sorry, we changed our mind” and pull the rug out from those people?

Second, while not universally true, many recipients of athletic scholarships would be dependent on other aid in order to attend. In some cases, there would be no cost cutting, just cost moving.

Third, and while not the rule, there are a number of athletic programs that are revenue positive for the university. According to Forbes, in 2007 UNC basketball posted a $16.9 million net profit. While running programs solely for the profit at a public university isn’t really how things should be done (in my opinion), a little pragmatism should be applied. Eliminating $16.9 million in additional funds when money is short seems like a really bad idea.

Fourth, what percent of the expenditures are athletic scholarships? Athletic programs are a big part of the positive PR for universities, so cutting them is a big risk. We need to know the reward before we advocate taking that risk.

All-in-all, a 5.2% increase in tuition isn’t out of line. Education CPI is up 4.9% from this time last year. It isn’t like this is way beyond the norm.