<p>People aren't necessarily saying athletic departments give money to the university general budget; I think they are saying that the (usually) two main revenue sports contribute to the athletic department as a whole and help fund the non revenue sports. That and the booster contributions tend to run all things athletic at many schools, so the money they are spending on recruiting athletes is not taking away from funds used to pay for classes, professors, etc. The top schools sports wise are getting a lot of those contributions that are earmarked for athletics by the donors. Maybe one day parents, alumni, and boosters will all be wildly flying their school flags in their front yards during finals week each semester to show their support for the hard working students while having a cold one as the test taking is aired live on television. Scintillating.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Maybe they are worth it on other grounds, but they cannot be justified based on their financial contribution.
[/quote]
If you only kept teams that could justify their financial contributions, then virtually every women's team would be eliminated. The Lady Vols could play UConn in a traveling exhibition series like the Harlem Globetrotters & Washington Generals. Not too many other competitors would be left.</p>
<p>
[quote]
If you only kept teams that could justify their financial contributions
[/quote]
</p>
<p>If we did this, there'd be A LOT of stuff that wouldn't be around. I think that would pretty well eliminate drama, music, etc. I would be pretty shocked if they are anywhere close to being as self-supporting as some athletic departments.</p>
<p>Lightzout,
Folks in other parts of the country support their professional teams as much as folks do in the Northeast as there are pro teams in many Southern and Midwestern cities and states. The difference is that many college teams in the South and Midwest also have HUGE followings that make the football games into a lot more than just a game. </p>
<p>Go to a major college game in the South or Midwest or even large sections of the West and just look at the party going on and the amount of fun and passion that accompanies the event. With few exceptions, this just does not happen in the Northeast (unless you want to consider places like Penn State or U Michigan as Northeast). You can see some of this on TV with their crowd shots, but this does not give you any feel for what’s going on in the tailgate parking lots days before and for hours after these events. And that doesn’t even begin to reveal the positive energy that these events bring to a college’s campus, sometimes for weeks and months on end. It really can be a lot of fun and spur a passion and a connection that will last a lifetime.</p>
<p>It seems that we have passed over the fact that these are academic institutions whose missions have nothing in particular to do with athletics. Most of the rest of the world does not tie their academic institutions to their professional sports systems. The fact that we do it is an accident of history. I'm not arguing that we dispense with college athletics, it just seems to me that our priorities are out of whack. What bad thing would happen if we just systemically pulled in the reins on this system and limited expenditures on college athletics. We would still have teams, tailgate parties, and school spirit just at a lower price. What is the downside?</p>
<p>Good Post Maineparent and I agree with most of it.</p>
<p>While I am sure competition inside the IVY can be intense, most people in the rest of the country barely know they have sports. If they participated in the FCS playoffs in football that might help but they choose not to and this advances the idea that they are non-competitive.</p>
<p>
[quote]
What bad thing would happen if we just systemically pulled in the reins on this system and limited expenditures on college athletics. We would still have teams, tailgate parties, and school spirit just at a lower price. What is the downside?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, for one thing, we'd probably win fewer medals at the Olympics.</p>
<p>Most athletic programs at colleges are no different than other non profitable activities... so just get rid of them. No art galleries on campus, no theater productions, no drum corps, no choir, no funds for student run organizations unless they are tied to an academic class/purpose. Honestly, the universities fund so many co- and extra-curricular activities that I do not understand what the big deal is. Does it boil down to money, as in television contracts and shoe company sponsorship? If it does, then I guarantee you that as soon as people become interested in watching paintings dry, then the broadcast rights will be sold and a lot of money will go towards the fine arts departments at colleges across the country. Non university money funds a great deal of college sports. Yes, the money looks big when laid out in a budget, but take into consideration that some portion of that inflated athletic budget comes from television revenue, corporate sponsorship, and boosters and is not generated by student fees or tuition. The mistaken assumption here is that money not spent on recruiting would automatically be available for the general budget. That probably is not the case.</p>