The majority of Division IA presidents said in a recent study that they feel they have no control over their respective athletic department budgets. But University President Mary Sue Coleman says she’s an exception to the rule.

The Knight Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics issued a report last month that found university presidents feel powerless in combating the rising costs associated with intercollegiate sports. The Knight Commission is a college sports think tank operated by college administration heavyweights from around the country — including University of Michigan Regent Andrea Fischer Newman, who is a member of the organization.

The report — which was based on interviews this spring and summer with 95 of the 120 presidents of Football Bowl Subdivision schools — found the majority of college presidents recognized a need to restructure athletic departments to reduce costs. But many of the presidents reported that they don’t feel like they’re in a position to create that change.

“Presidents would like serious change, but don’t see themselves as the force for the changes needed, nor have they identified an alternative force they believe could be effective,” the report stated.

In an interview late last month with The Michigan Daily, University President Coleman said she could not remember if she had been interviewed for the study, but said she had read the report and doesn’t think the findings are true for the University.

“I understand that maybe a lot of presidents feel like they can’t do anything, but I guess I don’t feel that way about myself at Michigan,” Coleman said.

She added: “Maybe I’m very privileged to be in this circumstance, (but) I do feel like we have good control.”

While the Athletic Department’s finances are separate from those of the academic operations of the University, Coleman said Michigan has had a tradition of firm presidential control over intercollegiate athletics, which is uncommon among other universities.

“We are very fortunate here that the presidents have been able to sort of be in charge, and we’ve had good administration and a good athletic director who has put us in an extremely good financial position,” she said.

Despite Coleman’s optimism, many university presidents who responded in the report questioned how long they could sustain their current athletic operations given escalating athletic expenses. Roughly half of the respondents said their current athletic models will impact the number of varsity sports they will be able to maintain in future years.

Coleman said the University has been “very conscious” about the need to create sustainable athletic operations.

She cited the work of Athletic Director Bill Martin, who focused on athletic sustainability issues during his nine years as director. In the 1999 fiscal year, the Athletic Department suffered a $2.8 million deficit. According to documents from a University Board of Regents meeting in 2008, the department was projected to run a $10.3 million surplus during the last fiscal year.

Martin recently announced that he will retire next September, and Coleman said she is searching for a new athletic director who will also make fiscal stability a priority.

“One of the issues that I will be looking for in the next athletic director is somebody who can articulate the ways in which to keep what we do at Michigan sustainable,” she said.

In the report, many university presidents cited the hardships associated with mounting athletic costs. Three-fourths of the presidents interviewed for the study said that athletics present a unique problem in controlling costs compared to other schools, departments and units at their universities.

At the University of Michigan, costs appear to be similarly on the rise.