REGENTS CHOOSE RIGHT ON ATHLETICS BUDGET

The Southeast Missouri State University Board of Regents voted unanimously last week to reject a budget panel's recommendation that $250,000 be trimmed from the school's intercollegiate athletic allocation. In doing so, regents bypassed the counsel of the university's Budget Review Committee. Hard as the decision is to accept during difficult fiscal times, the regents acted properly.

Cape Girardeau's university faces its share of budget challenges. It is understandable that employees of the university, whose personal bank accounts are directly tied to these budget deliberations, would point to highly visible, academically tenuous sports programs as a place to cut expenditures. Athletic endea~vors, after all, are not critical to the mission of the university. The argument goes that superfluous programs that can't pay their way should be trimmed, especially during times when budgets are lean. All things considered, it is not a bad argument.

However, the timing and circumstances are wrong in this instance. Southeast has made a commitment to athletics it must move forward with.

We believe the intercollegiate sports program, like it or not, plays a major role in providing an identity for the university. The Indian and Otahkian teams have represented the school in fine style around the region and nation, not to mention providing entertainment and a rallying point for the campus and local community. For numerous reasons that have been expounded on in this space before, the move to NCAA Division I athletics was a good one. While the word should go out that fat of any kind can't be tolerated in the current fiscal climate, the university can not play with the athletic department like a ~yo-yo, honoring a commitment of broad profile only when budgetary conditions are ideal. As the first year of Division I competition concludes, the teams must view the future with some confidence that the university hasn't sent them to bat in the big time with only a wiffle-ball bat to swing.

None of this is to denigrate the work of the Budget Review Committee, which by a one-vote margin recommended a quarter-million dollar cut in the sports programs. The panel did its advisory job. Likewise, the regents did their work, looking at the broader interests of the institution. We applaud the regents for applying some independent thought to this issue; we're glad to see that from what should be a board that directs the university to the full extent of its charge.

Signals emitted from this debate should be carefully considered. A promised cap on athletic department expenditures (3 percent of total university budget) has been cracked; the regents should not now consider this pledge vacated and the sports staff should be accountable for bringing its budget to this acceptable level of funding within a reasonable time frame. What this means is that the athletic department must fill seats, particularly in football, which is a cash cow at many universities. The athletic department must also increase its already considerable efforts at external fundraising. Sports programs will probably never be able to pay their own way at a university like Southeast, but moving in that direction is certainly desirable.

The Division I move is an investment for Southeast. The university can not shortchange the move in its infancy and expect the investment to produce its appropriate return. The regents in this case made the right budgetary choice.