When people find out I'm a sports writer, they tend to ask similar questions. Most ask my opinion about this team or that player. But, every now and then, someone asks me about what I think is one of the most intriguing subjects in sports: the effect of college sports on academics and economics.

Since the early 2000s, there seems to be an "arms race" in college football to build bigger stadiums and earn more money in college athletics. But people have major concerns about the rising cost of coaches' salaries and that those salaries are rising quicker than professors' salaries.

Colleges and universities want the best professors to provide quality education and research. Low pay could cause the professors to look elsewhere for employment.

Recently, Mississippi State University gave head coach Dan Mullen a significant pay raise. Mullen was making $1.5 million a year under his old contract, but after an 8-4 regular season, MSU decided their coach needed a pay increase. In a new four-year deal, Mullen will earn about $2.65 million annually.

Who foots that large bill?

Good question. The university will pay Mullen $250,000. Donations to the private Bulldog Foundation pay the rest of his salary.

So what does MSU pay their professors? The average salary in 2010-09 was $92,700. That would lead you to believe that Mullen makes $2.56 million more than the average professor at MSU.

But this is where it gets tricky. While professors might not make the money per year Mullen is paid, their salaries are not the grand total of their incomes. The American Association of University Professors (AAUP) does not require universities to report summer salary (summer teaching, stipends, extra load or other forms of remuneration), only contracted salary. Their contracted salaries also do not include income from research grants typically earned in the summer, or from consulting, speaking or publishing.

If coaches' salaries are not a concern, people want to know how much universities spend on sports. Another tricky question.

College athletics have only two guaranteed moneymaking sports: football and men's basketball. A few exceptions exist where sports like baseball or women's basketball makes money for a school, but that's not the rule.

This generally means that football and men's basketball has to pay for all the other sports that lose money, putting more pressure to win on football and men's basketball coaches. Winning equals more booster donations, higher ticket sales (few will pay to see losing teams), higher merchandise sales and other moneymaking endeavors.

So why not get rid of all those money-losing sports? That leads us to Title IX.

Title IX is part of a federal law that provides equal opportunity in education, including in sports programs. Universities must offer equal participation in women's sports as in men's sports. For example, sports scholarships for men and women must be the same.

Not to get bogged down on specifics, but Title IX is one reason universities cannot cut money-draining athletic programs. When universities have cut athletic programs, they have usually been men's sports teams.

Universities place a bigger emphasis on football and basketball to fund their athletic programs. That leads to a bigger question: Are athletic departments funding themselves, or are they a drain on the university?

Again, this is a hard question to answer because a lot of the data are questionable at best. Most athletic departments show balancing revenues and expenditures.

Some question if athletic directors are "cooking the books" in terms of spending, says Rick Hesel, a principal of Baltimore's Art & Science Group, who helped the Knight Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics complete a study on spending on college athletics.

Studies that ask if success in athletics lead to more money for academics show mixed results. Some say sports provide no academic benefit, and others say there is a slight benefit.

Overall, though, experts admit that successful sports teams lead to increased enrollment and donations.

"Like it or not—and I generally don't—college sports is the main thing that makes alumni enthusiastic about their school," wrote publisher James Joyner on his website Outside the Beltway.

This entire subject is controversial and without easy answers.

Every time someone brings up college sports and money, I'm reminded of the movie "The Program." In one scene, James Caan's character, Coach Winter, tries to get his back-up quarterback back on the team after he's been kicked out of school.

"This is not a football vocational school. It's an institute for higher learning," the regent chairman tells him.

"Yeah, but when was the last time 80,000 people showed up to watch a kid do a damn chemistry experiment?" Caan asks.

For a 1993 film, it was ahead of its time.

Follow Bryan Flynn on Twitter @jfpsports.