<p>
</p>
<p>Right. The law itself didn’t mention sports, but Title IX has affected college sports programs more than anything else. It is the reason that sports that make no money and generate little interest are still around.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I know but what I am saying is blaming Title IX is actually incorrect. One should blame the Department of Education (specifically the Office of Civil Rights). 
</p>
<p>I would actually say it’s the reason many men’s sports that make no money and generate little interest are NOT around, and have been replaced by women’s sports that make no money and generate little interest.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>While if that is the case you are a hypocratic idiot. Why should music programs be given preferance over sports programs? I am activley involved in both sports and music, I am good at both, and honestly I see playing baseball to be WAY more benificial to my life than playing the bass. Baseball keeps me active, healthy, and around other people; playing in an orchestra is really not a benificial to your overall self imo. Also, if this becomes a financial issue, sports bring in WAY more revenue to a school than fine arts, which I would bet actually lose money for the school everywhere except top notch conservatories which wouldn’t have sports programs anyways.</p>
<p>Yeah, the sports program at NYU is really a cash cow. They not only can’t charge for people to come to the events (because no one would pay for it), they have to advertise and market like there’s no tomorrow and then bribe people with free stuff (t-shirts seem to be common), and people STILL don’t show up. Sports at NYU are bleeding red ink. I’m sure sports would be the first to go if NYU was forced to cut their budget. Well actually more like raise tuition by 10%.</p>
<p>@futurenyustudent - nyu is ridiculously expensive and has a reputation for extremely suck financial aid. but I don’t think cutting sports would mean less tuition or cutting costs for students (god forbid), that money would simply go somewhere else, like demolishing more historical real estate to build fugly dorms or so the dept of renaissance & medieval culture can finally have their own advising center, or maybe we can have Sexton’s face wallpapered in every classroom. </p>
<p>oh, and I definitely go to the volleyball and basketball games sometimes. mostly because my friends are on the team. I have a ridiculous amount of NYU women’s volleyball tshirts considering i haven’t touched a volleyball since high shcool.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>what schools have billion dollar budgets?</p>
<p>The cured part… quite funny but you both have a point but the majors have a bigger impact that sports and just because someone gets a sport scholarship or is into sports doesn’t mean that it has to rule the rest of our lives and the rest of the school…</p>
<p>just a though. :)</p>
<p>Getting rid of P.E. in school is one of the most ridiculous comments I’ve heard in a while. Many schools have already cut time/funding from that area. It won’t do us much good if we educate a bunch of youth who won’t live very long because of their lifestyle is disastrous to their health.</p>
<p>Dude, if UW Madison did not have big time football, basketball, and hockey, I would not be going there. Having a solid football and basketball program was my first criteria in choosing a college, above academics. If there were no college sports, I would not go to college. There is nothing I will learn in my business degree that I wouldn’t learn in the real world anyways. I am obsessed with sports - I hate school. This is the opinion of about a third of college students, it’s just that most of those kids don’t sit and post on these types of forums.</p>
<p>BTW, it’s not like I’m dumb: I got a 33ACT and a 3.95UW GPA from onw of the top hs’s in the country - I just am extremelly bored with academics and am obsessed with sports. If you don’t like sports, go to an LAC or some school like NYU, Emory, CalTech, or an ivy. You non-sports fans have plenty of options. Leave sports and their budgets alone cause honestly, I believe the Woman’s Studies program should be cut for detracting money away from the hockey team.</p>
<p>BTW, Title IX has screwed more high schools and colleges financially than anything.</p>
<p>i would ask “what are you doing in college?” but then i forgot about business programs . . .</p>
<p>a lot of people in college are there to learn things. schools’ mission statements prob. go something like “we are here to educate students”. schools should focus on academics first and athletics second. sorry bro.</p>
<p>Sports often help Universities academics, look at Ohio State before their 2003 national championship and look now</p>
<p>According to the article below, there were only 19 universities with self-sufficient athletics in 2006-07. All other universities run their athletic departments at a loss. I grant that this data is 2 years old, but I doubt that more athletic departments have started operating at a profit in the current economy.</p>
<p>[Ohio</a> State’s Athletic Budget Nearly $110M For '07-08 School Year](<a href=“http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/article/115850]Ohio”>http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/article/115850)</p>
<p>That’s good info. I think universities should not be so imbalanced investing millions in sports and couple hundred thousands in other extracurricular activities, clubs etc. It’s not fair.</p>
<p>Suppose that, for any given reason, Princeton sends a musician student up to the finals in American Idol. Then, next year, out of jealousy UPenn active start searching potential pop singers to recruit. Scholarships are given out. A decade later, say, Harvard and Columbia would be playing serious in the business of trying to enroll pop singers and not further down Fox would start “American Idol - Campus Edition”, first as a special, then as a regular season show.</p>
<p>Then, even if your performance in SAT/ACT is a joke for Ivy standards, and your grades are less-then-stellar, you would still be able to “clitch” a place if you have cute videos and an amazing voice that could entertain the masses in annual concerts and AI - Campus Edition and other minor shows that would cater for not-so-good singers.</p>
<p>Prestige would come and go depending on iTunes sales of soundtracks from Universitie’s music roll, concert attendance etc. Dedicated music labels would come to existence only to cater for the newly created market of college student pop singers. Recruitment offices would be frantic, sending producers to Utah hinterland in the search of the next David Archuleta.</p>
<p>In Ivies-wannabe’s, singers would made up to 10% of student enrollment, and they would get fancy, state-of-the art workshops and halls where they could pratice and get better then other college singers. Financial Aid would be diverted from nerds, overachievers and other people who deserve to be in college but give them no immediate market recognition to fund singers who couldn’t learn how to solve a derivate by the chain rule in senior yea because what they have on their voices, they lack on their ability or willingness to learn hard science stuff.</p>
<p>Of course, musical producers would compete with sports coaches for the biggest six-figure salaries in the payroll. Critics would arise, only to be bashed with the argument that “oh, singers put as much effort in performing as you put in the science lab”, and “music in as important part of the whole college experience”, and “if you don’t have good pop music departments, high school applicants won’t notice your college”.</p>
<p>I’m okay with school having sporting programs, but they shouldn’t take that much money, and unprofitable programs should definitely be the first to feel the wrath of budget cutbacks.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The problem is, schools can’t eliminate unprofitable athletic programs. Title IX prevents that. Their hands are tied by the government.</p>
<p>I’m not saying eliminate it altogether, I’m saying reduce spending. </p>
<p>Take San Diego State University for example. Their football team is atrocious and unprofitable. I think their first step should be to reduce or cut athletic scholarships…I mean, athletic scholarships are to get student athletes that will win games, so if they aren’t doing their job, I say cut their salary just like academically minded students get their academic scholarships cut if their grades suffer. In particular for SDSU, they should stop leasing the Qualcomm Stadium (Chargers play there) from the city. I think their best attendance was 20,000, but they usually have a fraction of that. I mean seriously, if their alumni and current students don’t care to go to games, why bother with a big expensive stadium? They should just lease a field from a local high school or community college. I believe SDSU was leasing Qualcomm for over $500,000 a game. Surely another school can afford to use that money to install a couple extra benches for the minuscule SDSU football audiences. They’re also paying for two head coaches because they fired and hired another guy without reading the contract, but that’s not as easy to fix.</p>
<p>Anyway, it is schools like SDSU that should cut back on their athletic programs.</p>
<p>“mind body” it’s a proven fact that high performing business, political, and scientific people were often scholar athletes in college. team work, focus, practice these are life skills learned in sports not classrooms.</p>
<p>Try taking a step out of your affluent suburb and put youself in the mindset of someone who isn’t only applying to ivies and actually needs sports to get into and pay for college. They wouldn’t be so pleased with you, would they. Also, it is millions of kids dreams growing up to play for Florida football or Kansas basketball or Minnesota hockey, and it is wrong to take away something they truly love. Plus the school barely pays for any of it because boosters generally donate millions and football, basketball, and hockey make money which helps fund other sports, not to mention generous TV, NCAA tournament, and bowl game royalties that go straight to the school for them to use however they want. Also, college sports is the highest level of competition in america where the athletes are all young and compete for the love of the game, not millions. Just because you don’t like sports doesn’t mean colleges need to get rid of it.</p>
<p>Clearly you have not read this thread. The problem is that at 99% of all colleges, athletics run at a deficit (even when you take royalties, donations, apparel sales, etc into account). And even more frustratingly,</p>
<p>Many schools are increasing their athletic spending even though every other department, especially academics, gets budget cuts.</p>
<p>Most of us are not suggesting to cut athletics completely. But it would be nice if athletics were not given priority over academics. Budget cuts should affect both areas equally.</p>
<p>That’s the short-term issue. In the long run, there is another question: should college-league sports be turned into professional leagues? Then athletes would get part of the pie they earn, and colleges would not have to subsidize athletics. It also seems that competitive athletics interferes with academics so much that 50% of athletes at some colleges never graduate. If competitive athletics were separate from colleges, athletes would not have to be full-time students to compete. That would alleviate the stress of managing a full-time course load alongside quasi-professional athletics. Teams could still be associated with universities, and athletes might still get the opportunity to take classes at that university. But maybe athletic funding should be separate from the university budget, and athletes not required to be full-time students.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m still waiting for someone to tell me where the fine arts departments are making money. Or are they ALL running deficits?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not possible. The NCAA would hit that school with so many penalties it wouldn’t be funny…</p>