Hidden Student Fees Diverted to Athletics

Discussion in 'General Distance Learning Discussions' started by Maniac Craniac, Sep 22, 2010.

  1. Maniac Craniac

    Maniac Craniac Moderator Staff Member

  2. rickyjo

    rickyjo New Member

    Oh man, that happened at the very crappy private high school I attended (CSCS *gag*).

    I think college sports being part of the school system is a problem on a few levels. Why can't the NFL and NBA develop a farm system like the MLB? That way we don't have to pay for it and to become a professional athlete you don't have to go to college!
  3. AUTiger00

    AUTiger00 New Member

    Most football and basketball programs, at least at the Div. 1 level, are/could be completely self sustaining. Those teams typically generate enough revenue to cover ALL of their costs. The problem is that with the exception of a few schools, it doesn't generate enough revenue to cover costs for all sports. The money generated by football and basketball is used to fund the ENTIRE athletic department. There are only a handful of athletic programs that are completely self sustaining (Ohio State and the University of Oregon, I believe Auburn and Alabama are both very close if not there already), but that is because those schools have a large amount of booster/alumni support given directly to the athletic department, in Oregon's case it is coming from Phil Knight. My point is, if you want to cut athletic costs get rid of the olympic- and women's-sports teams that don't generate revenue and are bleeding cash, but leave football and basketball alone.
  4. rickyjo

    rickyjo New Member

    That's some good information!
  5. CalDog

    CalDog New Member

    This appears to be correct. The NCAA just published a new study of the 120 Division I FBS schools last month. Some of the findings:

    - Most of the football programs (68 of 120) were profitable
    - Most of the men's basketball programs (67 of 120) were profitable
    - All other sports operated at a loss, at every school
    - Schools with profitable football and/or men's basketball programs used the revenue to help subsidize the other, money-losing sports
    - In most cases, however, such revenue was insufficient to fully compensate for the losses from money-losing sports.
    - So only 14 (of 120) schools had profitable athletic programs overall.
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 22, 2010
  6. AUTiger00

    AUTiger00 New Member

    And athletic departments will never cut those sports because you have to maintain 16 teams to compete at the Div 1 level and because of Title IX they have to fund scholarships for sports that will never turn a profit (with the exception of the women's basketball teams at UConn and Tennessee, which both turn a profit).
  7. 03310151

    03310151 Active Member

    If it were not for Title IX then I am willing to bet that most D1 college programs would operate at a profit, not just half of them. The reason your daughter gets to go to Arizona State on a tennis scholarship is because of those barely literate inner-city football/basketball players.

    Most academics have such disdain for athletics that it's palpable. You should have seen the complete 180 that the Jesuits from Gonzaga did when their basketball team started having nationally recognized success. The turn around was stunningly remarkable and and also a little sad. As the ivory tower snobbery fell to a sea of Go Zags! bumper stickers, posters, and sweatshirts.

    Basketball success for this school has meant more (in terms of money, national recognition, alumni contributions, etc.)than any of the hoighty-toighty liberal arts pontificators could do in a hundred years.

    Athletics add to the college experience.

    <--------------03310151 is not an athlete, does not watch sports, but is pragmatic.
  8. lawrenceq

    lawrenceq Member

    You should have kept that to yourself.
  9. Who are these people that are against sports? Is there really a common enemy here or are we just castigating some ivory tower academic straw men?
  10. Maniac Craniac

    Maniac Craniac Moderator Staff Member

    Well, I'm personally in favor of sports, especially as the United States is progressively eating more and moving their bodies less. However, I'm not sure why college sports are such a big thing. I really don't see why it has to be anything more than intramural with, maybe, a few games against some local rivals- a type of program that many colleges already have. That could do a much better job of keeping the game "pure" ("pure" to be interpreted in a variety of ways), while giving the students a chance to socialize and keep themselves physically active. For the students who want to turn professional, they can consider whether or not they really value college or if they would rather pave their paths through the major league farm systems (which would exist if college sports wasn't doing it for them). Obviously, the tradition and the money-making machine can't be taken away now, but I'm not sure that it should have ever become what it now is.

    I'm especially disheartened because, as I mentioned, one of the reasons I'm in favor of sports is that they could make our sedentary country more active. Unfortunately, the current model of college sports encourages vastly more spectators than participants, catalyzing the problem rather than allaying it.

    From an economics perspective, in some cases, it is making college expenses needlessly higher, even if by a small percentage. I really hate waste, ya know.
  11. 03310151

    03310151 Active Member

    Why? It's often times how people refer to college athletes. It's not my view.
  12. lawrenceq

    lawrenceq Member

    It just didn't sound right, but maybe that's just to me.

    Not all athletes from the inner-city are barely literate.
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 22, 2010
  13. rickyjo

    rickyjo New Member

    Hey MC, that's a really good post. I agree that the system as it stands is lamentable, but probably too late to change.
  14. 03310151

    03310151 Active Member

    Agreed. But we should quit avoiding uncomfortable speech. Sounding right does not solve the problem at all. Frank discussions with real people using real words will solve problems.
  15. Daniel Luechtefeld

    Daniel Luechtefeld New Member


    1. Implement a salary cap for coaches

    2. Cut the size of football squads - most FBS (D-I) rosters are in excess of 100 players. No other sport has a "scout team" of players who will never see the field in an actual game.

    3. Stop abuses such as quartering the football team in hotels...before HOME GAMES!

    I LOVE college football, but this stuff has gotten way out of hand. It is not the mission of universities to subsidize the NFL with a minor league, which is how these programs are behaving.
  16. AUTiger00

    AUTiger00 New Member

    First, a football team doesn't have 100 scholarship athletes. Second, if the team is generating enough revenue to cover it's costs who are we to complain. A winning football program grows a schools national reputation. Hell, Alabama won a NC last year and jumped 20 spots in the USNWR rankings because 1. it drove out-of-state applications from students with higher academic qualifications and 2. it drove alumni giving, which is factored into those rankings.
    How about we just have each team cover it's costs. If it can't do, the sport goes away. But then every feminist on the planet would cry discrimination when the only two Women's teams in the country left would be UConn and Tennessee basketball.
    I in no way believe we should do that, I'm just trying to demonstrate why college football is important to a school. Most of the revenue generated by a program isn't from the students, it's from lucrative television contracts, apparel deals with Nike/Under Armour/Adidas, alumni giving and ticket sales. The actual cost to students is very little, my guess would be a few dollars a semester if anything. The only money of mine that went to the athletic program at Auburn was the $45 student rate season football tickets. Money well spent.
    Find something else to complain about. This is a non-story.
  17. 03310151

    03310151 Active Member


    Although I like this thread better than someone posting another thread on Ashford. Or one on "DETC vs. RA, which is better"?
  18. I agree with AUTiger -- if there were no college sports, no one would have even heard of Auburn University. It'd be just "some school from Alabama".

  19. Maniac Craniac

    Maniac Craniac Moderator Staff Member

    If thats all they are, then thats all they should be known as.
  20. 03310151

    03310151 Active Member

    Wait! Auburn is in Alabama?

    I was thinking up some witty football insults about Auburn and then realized that Washington State University is now 4-24 since 2008 when the new coach took over.

Share This Page