Perhaps it's time for college fund-raisers to come clean about the differences between giving to colleges and universities and giving to their athletic programs. When donors give to athletics, their gifts may produce visible results (a winning season, perhaps, or an NCAA tournament spot), but such gifts do not help colleges achieve their primary mission: the education of tomorrow's leaders. Not that there is anything wrong with giving to athletic programs, but a spade needs to be called a spade.

We've all heard the rationalizations. College athletic programs —- especially big-time football and basketball —- boost school spirit and spur alumni giving. College athletic programs give some students a shot at a college education they wouldn't get otherwise. And sports competition helps us become well-rounded individuals. None of these points is inherently untrue. Just irrelevant.

Americans, through tax dollars, tuition and philanthropy, support some 2,500 public and private four-year colleges and universities for a reason: to educate the scientists, teachers, entrepreneurs, managers, engineers, inventors, diplomats, journalists, health professionals, military officers, public officials and others who will lead and sustain us in the future. As much as I might enjoy the Indiana Pacers and Indianapolis Colts, their services are fundamentally unnecessary for the survival, prosperity, well-being and enlightenment of the country.

Spending on sports rises

Yet, 26 percent of all dollars donated to Division I-A colleges and universities now go to athletics, according to an analysis published in the April 2007 issue of the Journal of Sport Management. In 1998, the comparable figure was 14.7 percent.

In fact, the Chronicle of Higher Education reported late last year that overall spending on sports has been growing "at a rate three times faster than that for spending on the rest of the campus." And for most schools, according to recently released NCAA research, sports program costs exceed revenues. Only the top athletic powerhouses make money —- and, frequently, only when they win.

Where's the money going? Mostly, it goes to build new stadiums, arenas and practice facilities to showcase the schools' gladiators. George Washington University, for example, in the nation's capital, recently announced "the largest single donation in the institution's history." The $10 million gift was not for an academic program, but for the renovation of the Charles E. Smith Center, where the Colonials' basketball teams play.

Ten million dollars is just the tip of the iceberg. Schools in the six top college athletic conferences, which include the Atlantic Coast Conference, Big Ten, Big 12 and Pac 10, received more than $3.9 billion in donations for athletic facilities from 2002 to 2007 alone, the Chronicle of Higher Education says. What's more, "Over the next few years, [these] big-time athletic programs hope to raise an additional $2.5 billion for new buildings."

The question that needs to be asked is why are schools spending big bucks on athletic facilities for a relative handful of semipro athletes when academics should be their focus?

Results you can see

As Murray Sperber noted in his wonderful book, "Beer and Circus: How Big-Time College Sports is Crippling Undergraduate Education," college athletics —- the cheering, cheerleaders, drama, parties, money, big game, Sweet 16, Final Four —- may be part of the college experience, but it doesn't improve education. It siphons needed resources away from education.

One reason many philanthropists choose to give to college athletics is because they know what they are getting. Who can blame them? When you donate a large sum of money to support Georgia Tech and University of Georgia athletic programs, you do so because the Yellow Jackets and Bulldogs have a winning tradition and you hope your gift will help produce additional championships. When you write the same check to the English or History department, you may never know where the money went.

If education is to be the primary focus of our colleges and universities, officials involved in the "rainmaking" process, whether development officers, trustees or college presidents, need to do a better job of demonstrating to donors what their educational gifts accomplish in an equally transparent and powerful way.

They do higher education a disservice when they spend money excessively on the game, while shortchanging the end game: a highly educated workforce to face the competitive challenges of the 21st century —- and a tolerant and enlightened public capable of making intelligent personal and political choices.

That's what we need. And that's what a new field house doesn't buy.

> Frederic J. Fransen is executive director of the Indianapolis-based Center for Excellence in Higher Education (www.cehe.org), a nonprofit organization helping philanthropists improve higher education through their donations.