<p>I think there was an earlier comparison that is better than sports versus a humanities major … it was the comparison to other ECs/studetn life activities … to be consistent I assume those who believe sports funding should be cut also believe college support of non-class bands, theater, student centers, movies on campus, club support, etc should also be cut; any campus activity not directlyh related to providing academic courses? Or are some of those things important to you and you believe they should be part of campus life?</p>
<p>The accounting of college sports is pretty squishy but most estimates I’ve seen show that about 50-60 DI football programs make money with about 1/2 of those makeing enough (along with bball profits) to pay for all the other sports at the schools. A lot of other DI schools are losing big bucks on sports. That said most schools are DIII or NAIA school which lose money on sports (none of their sports make money) but have implemented sports in a way that is not terrible expensive (no scholarships, virtually all travel by bus, smaller coaching staffs, recruiting limits. etc).</p>
<p>I find one of the ironic parts of this discussion is that historically a well rounded person … was educated, was spirutal, and was fit … think the top prep schools with mandatory sports participation and originally mandatory religious participation … somwhere along the way this goal has changed for many people.</p>
<p>I think it is fair to compare sports to student life activities. But colleges spend nowhere near as much money on student life activities as on sports! </p>
<p>Using Berkeley as an example again, the athletic department has an operating budget of nearly 70 million dollars a year. That serves a whopping 900 athletes. In other words, the university is spending $77,000 a year per athlete just on athletics. That is more than they are spending on academics and student life combined for the rest of the student body!</p>
<p>Trim those $77,000 down to $2,000 a year, and athletics become just another student life activity.</p>
<p>You do realize that if you make it to a BCS bowl your school get $17.5 mil right? And that’s only football, sports are profitable to a school, they rarely take away from their recources. Also, most of the money given to athletic programs are from boosters who makes sure the money goes where they want it. The OPs argument is just stupid.</p>
<p>I’m going to be a “stand alone” on this one but I think no public schools, including K-12, should have sports programs, including phys ed, at all.</p>
Your username is “Fencer’s mother.” Fencing is a sport. What would Junior do if he couldn’t stab other kids with swords anymore? might he stab Momma? :)</p>
<p>Or, if he’s in private fencing lessons, realize that not everyone’s family has the money for that stuff. Sports, arts and clubs are an important part of K-12 life, and college life too. it’s a chance to make friends, stay fit, learn teamwork and other important skills. </p>
<p>Also, like half of the kids in this country are shaped like barrels with pudgy heads sticking out. they should be required to play sports for like 5 hours a week in school. And not sports like bowling, legit exercise.</p>
<p>You do realize that the sports are bringing in, for instance, $100 donations per football game that the alumni (and non-alumni) might have no even made in the first place? So say a team has 7 home games per season (some have 6; some even have 8), the alumni may be paying $700 per person (ticket + season ticket seat donation) for a family of four, and that doesn’t include food, parking, merchandise. I am a Junior in HS, but UConn’s basketball teams and football teams fuel every other sport it offers as well as tuition and academic matters. So in short, you’d be paying more without sports.</p>
<p>Well then they should be self-funding then, no? If they pull in all this revenue, why should schools subsidize them? If sports want to exist, I have no problem with them being self-funded. But when millions of dollars is being cut from the academic budget and virtually none from the sports budget, our priorities are REALLY skewed. </p>
<p>Yeah seriously, tune in to ESPN and the majority of people at a stadium are gonna be overweight people. And I do suck at most sports, but that’s not the reason why I think funding should be lowered. I suck at playing most instruments as well but I don’t want funding for music programs cut now do I?</p>
<p>And lol romani, I’m not a humanities major, I just have respect for them. Plus it doesn’t really matter what the hell you major in. Money isn’t everything. And unless you cure some disease, do something heroic or lead a country or some ****, most people will never remember you so there’s no point in feeling superior over a humanities major because in the end you’ll both be rotting in the dirt.</p>
<p>in a majority of schools they do lose money, but big state universities it does bring in money. i bet at michigan they make a good size profit. also athletics promotes school spirit, which probably increases the amount of donors, and it also draws students at a lot of schools</p>
<p>Yeah, but life is essentially by definition morbid. The sooner one accepts the fact that they’ve only got so much time on this place, the sooner one can start enjoying the little things in life and not get hung up over how much you make as long as you’re happy.</p>
<p>I guess that depends on the major to start with. Also, if you want to cut things that “aren’t a part of their primary mission,” you may want to start with those that don’t make ANY money…</p>