The study found intercollegiate athletics had become a culture unto itself, one rampant with escalating coaches' salaries, blatant commercialism and a "winning-is-everything" ethos that threatened the true mission of institutions of higher learning.

The year was 1929.

Today, 80 years after the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching issued that report, critics inside and outside college sports are sounding the same warnings. They say many schools that field Football Bowl Subdivision (formerly Division I-A) football teams and Division I basketball teams are involved in a costly "arms race" in search of athletic dominance.

Winning counts, of course, which is why they keep score. But, there is concern in a growing number of quarters whether core values of universities are being overlooked in this drive for athletic success. They ask, "At what cost victory?"

Financially, the cost of winning -- and even fielding a losing big-time college athletic program -- is extremely high, particularly in a time of shrinking school endowments and rising student tuition and fees.

Expenditures for athletic programs are zooming into the stratosphere, with a 2007 median budget of $40 million for big-time athletic programs -- with some as high as $83 million, according to the Knight Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics, which in October issued a detailed study of major college sports programs.

Those budgets are climbing at an annual rate approaching 7 percent, but revenues aren't keeping pace, the commission reported. And the generally held theory that all big-time programs pay for themselves and the rest of the school's sports teams is, in most cases, a myth, it said.

The NCAA estimates that in a given year only 20 to 30 athletic programs actually generate enough external revenue, such as TV broadcast payments and alumni gifts, to cover operating expenses, the commission report noted.

Moreover, an NCAA study found 94 institutions ran a deficit for the 2007-08 school year, averaging losses of $9.9 million. That means university or government support is necessary to make up the shortfall, money that presumably could otherwise be used for academic programs and activities.

Given that, should college sports programs strive to "keep up with the Joneses" -- their competitors both in games and for recruits -- and pacify rabid boosters by paying ever-escalating coaching salaries, building palatial sports facilities and otherwise increasing athletic spending in search of that winning formula?

"You don't want to lose any competitive advantage. This is what begets an arms escalation that is completely out of control," said Peter Roby, athletic director at Northeastern University in Boston.

Northeastern this year ended its 74-year-old Football Championship Subdivision (formerly Division I-AA) football program because Mr. Roby and other school officials determined the investment required to make it competitive was too high. Less than two weeks later, Colonial Athletic Association rival Hofstra University followed suit.

"At some point, sanity has to be brought back to college athletics, specially to FBS football and Division I basketball," Mr. Roby said. "When you're paying that much money under the guise of higher education -- which is a tough one to swallow -- someone has to get the genie back in the bottle."

That genie last week granted a wish to University of Texas football coach Mack Brown, whose annual salary increased from $3 million to at least $5 million as he prepared the Longhorns for their second BCS national championship game in five years.

How important is winning? At Texas, it's worth that kind of contract, which runs through 2016, and a $450,000 bonus if the unbeaten Longhorns defeat Alabama (also 13-0) in the Rose Bowl on Jan. 7. Meanwhile, Alabama's coach, Nick Saban, makes $4.7 million.

And onward and upward athletic program expenditures grow, even at schools with losing records.

Just ask Notre Dame University, which last week hired Cincinnati Coach Brian Kelly as its fourth head football coach since the end of the 2000 season. Mr. Kelly, whose Bearcats team went 12-0 this season and 34-6 over the last three seasons, got a five-year deal.

He replaces Charlie Weis, who was fired after going 6-6 this year and 16-21 over the last three years. The school will pay $18 million for the remaining six years on Mr. Weis's contract.

Mr. Kelly, who will not coach the Bearcats in the Sugar Bowl, told the team of his decision at a meeting Thursday night after their football banquet. Receiver Mardy Gilyard, who received the team's MVP trophy, angrily walked out a minute into the meeting.

"He went for the money," Mr. Gilyard told The Associated Press, adding that some players were upset that Mr. Kelly was leaving as the program achieved national prominence.

"Just blindsided by the fact that it's a business," Mr. Gilyard said. "People lose sight of that. At the end of the day, NCAA football is a business. People have got to make business decisions."

Next spring, the Knight Commission is expected to issue a report with recommendations to "brake the runaway train of athletic expenses."

Presidents of universities with major football programs don't disagree that something needs to be done. A Knight Commission poll, in which 80 percent of FBS university presidents participated, found agreement that spending trends "cannot be sustained nationally and collective action is needed to address escalating costs."

Some observers proffer that if schools themselves don't have the wherewithal to make corrections, some other body -- perhaps Congress or state legislatures -- will step in.

Amy Perko, Knight Commission executive director, said there is a growing consensus that some kind of remedy should be instituted sooner rather than later.

"We believe the critical question for presidents and trustees who are making the decision where to apply financial resources is 'What is the mission here?' " she said. "We believe there are trends that are not acceptable and not sustainable.

"There has to be fiscal reform. It's obvious from the data and common sense that reform needs to happen."

But Steve Pederson, University of Pittsburgh athletic director, said while it is possible there may be athletic programs whose focus on winning threatens a university's mission, "that's not the norm." To paint all big-time athletic programs with such a broad brush is unfair, he said.

"I'm very proud of what our institution is doing. I'm very proud of the institutions where my colleagues work as well," he said. "What we've tried to do is run a successful, top-notch program but to do so in a way that mirrors the responsible attitude of the institution. We want to win but we don't want to win at all costs..

"What we've tried to do is stay on pace with the university. It is growing every day in excellence in so many areas and I believe we should mirror that. We want excellence, and excellence does cost money so we do have to have revenues to support that. Fortunately, we have that."

West Virginia University Athletic Director Ed Pastilong said he likewise hasn't seen a "win-at-any-cost" philosophy.

"I see college administrators and governing boards and coaches wanting to have competitive programs but foremost they want to do it within the guidelines of the university's mission," he said.

Keeping an eye on expenditures and fielding top-flight, competitive teams "is a balancing act that needs to be carefully addressed," he added.

"We have been given a charge by our board of governors to be self-supporting and we do that. It's a competitive business and some of the elements that are required are very expensive," Mr. Pastilong said.

"To take the position not to keep up with others would be irresponsible because it affects competitiveness ... but the spending must be done in a responsible manner" with oversight inside and outside the athletic department.

Both Mr. Pederson and Mr. Pastilong said successful athletic programs not only are important to recruit top-flight student-athletes but to attract other students by creating an atmosphere of enthusiastic school spirit, a sense of community and alumni pride.

Their counterpart at Penn State, Tim Curley, declined to talk to the Post-Gazette. But in the Knight Commission report he expressed concern about increasing expenditures.

"I remain concerned that, if adjustments are not made, we will see a reduction of both men and women's programs in the next three to five years," he said in the report. Hardest hit will be non-revenue men's sports, which would be reduced to club or intramural status, he warned.

These issues and others will be discussed at "A Mirror of our Culture: Sport and Society in America," a three-day conference in May at St. Norbert College, an NCAA Division III liberal arts college in De Pere, Wis.

Conference director Kevin Quinn, a St. Norbert economics professor and author of the book, "Sports and Their Fans," said college athletics is a multibillion-dollar industry fueled greatly by television revenue for one reason -- there is a market for it.

"In the end, we have no one to blame but ourselves with this situation," he said. "Ultimately, we want to watch this." And, he added, "We want to see winners."

Sociologist Tim Brundrett agreed that collegiate sports have become market-driven.

"If we weren't there to gobble it up as a marketable product, all the money wouldn't be there. [Collegiate sports] reflects as much as it drives the value structure," said Mr. Brundrett, a part-time instructor at Pitt and Penn State's Shenango campus and president of Sports Decisions Inc., a firm that works with high school, college and professional athletes on their mental approach to competition.

"We value winning and connect it with our self-esteem and self-worth. We do that with kids, athletes at the youngest ages ... when they should be learning the good things that sports produces. But instead we instill the attitude that winning isn't everything, it's the only thing.

"Is it any wonder we spend millions on sports facilities? It doesn't surprise me at all."

What goes unanswered, said Mr. Quinn, is the question: "How many other things are we willing to trade just to have winning teams?"

"This arms race can't go on forever," he said. "You can't have continuing increases in athletic spending in an environment where higher education costs are going up and budgets are getting strangled at the state levels.

"Who will be the first one to swerve in this game of chicken?"

Possibly no one, offered Northeastern's Mr. Roby, who said it is possible that Congress may step in if schools with big-time athletic programs don't police themselves.

"We've lost our perspective and keep justifying it. Somebody has to bring sanity back to it.

"I'm afraid the collective will is not there and there will have to be someone outside to be an agent of change to get everyone's attention. Something big is going to happen."

Ron Musselman's Penn State blog and videos and Paul Zeise's "Pitt Stop" videos are featured exclusively on PG+, a members-only web site from the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. Our introduction to PG+ gives you all the details.