<p>
</p>
<p>what?</p>
<p>is the chemistry department profitable?
is the math department?
the government department?
the history department?
the philosophy department?</p>
<p>well, the academic departments attract thousands of applicants who come to college to get a degree in whatever, and then they pay tuition. similarly, athletics also play a huge role in culture and attract thousands of applicants (who might not have heard of the college if it wasn’t for sports). it’s not like either are unprofitable for a college…well some people are saying athletics are, but idk. I think most colleges benefit from their sports teams</p>
<p>now, I know that science dept’s receive a ton of money in grants for earning patents since the fields of technology/medicine/agriculture/pharmacy/science/whatever are profitable and a lot of that money goes to the university…well i’m not sure exactly how that funding works, but for example, the prof I work for just received a huge grant from the NIH and he says much of that money goes to the college, not his actual research. </p>
<p>To those saying academics are getting cut because of sports: What makes you think that money would otherwise go to lowering tuition or directly to academics otherwise? </p>
<p>Also, sports are more profitable than the arts - why is no one suggesting cutting art funding? Just curious 
*edit: That applies to music programs as well</p>
<p>wow, most of the above non-sports posters really are uniformed and/or jealous of college athletes.</p>
<p>athletes at good schools, such as Harvard, Stanford, Cal, UVA, Columbia, Duke, etc, etc are not “pretty lazy about school and scrape by during their four years” on the contrary they work very hard academically, harder than non-athlete students.</p>
<p>“Plenty of people have the athletic potential to play college sports, but many realize that the rewards are too few to waste their time” totally wrong! you can’t find a HS student with the athletic ability to be recruited who chooses not to…your statement is just nonsense.</p>
<p>And Alix is really out to lunch, thinking the quality of lab equipment is more important than the quality of the sports program for a student.</p>
<p>the anti sports in higher education posters on this thread sound bitter, like the kids who were picked last for a team…life is not fair and you don’t get picked because you don’t have the talent. And talent is both physical and intellectual for athletes…deal with it.</p>
<p>ugh i didn’t say students (or applicants) care more about the condition of lab equipment than quality of sports, I said academics/getting a degree is the reason colleges exist and why most people bother going at all. seriously, i don’t get why you think i’m anti-sports or something when i’ve repeatedly defended the existence of college sports since like the beginning of this thread…but whatever. and for the record, a lot of students in my HS were recruited (mostly for lax though) and turned it down for a better college.
Hmm now that would be interesting…and it would be beneficial for a lot of state schools, especially. I wonder how that would change sports recruitment at top private schools (like ivies) that don’t seem to care about athletic ability as much?
i know ivies recruit athletes, but do they give out athletic scholarships?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m assuming those programs are being cut as well. There should be cuts across the board. The services (money) offered to students should be adjusted for the number of students that participate and the amount of money the program brings in. Naturally, if a certain program brings in tons of money that’s well above what they need, let that program reap the benefits from that money. Of course, that still shouldn’t leave them immune to cuts unless they’re kicking some of that excess money back into other programs at the school.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Sorry pal, the nonsense is in the logic or grammer that caused you to post this. I mean, wow, there’s so much wrong with this. Did you even read my post and then think with a clear mind before you posted this? I’ll give you a pass if you were drunk or otherwise intoxicated, just let me know, and we can edit our posts.</p>
<p>
Yeah, I’m not sure how it’d work out. I can see how it could possibly cause even more corruption in what is already a system with illegal & corrupt activity at all levels. Still though, I think it’s only right that a system that creates professional levels be rewarded for the successful players that they produce. I just don’t want to figure out how to make that happen.</p>
<p>^^leaftye:sounds like you are the kid who was picked last in 7th grade flag-football, get over it!</p>
<p>and your assertion that recruited athletes to top D1 schools say “NO, I’d rather not”. Oh ya that happens all the time. </p>
<p>you’re not drunk, but you are smokin’ crack!:)</p>
<p>I live in Michigan and I go to a D1 school where sports are huge. It is absolutely RIDICULOUS that programs are being cut left and right but the sports funds remain nearly unaffected. I am an athlete, I adore sports, I’ve played sports since I was 4 years old, played in high school, and after an injury took me out of playing I became a coach, umpire, ref, etc and now run a nonprofit sports league (so don’t give me any crap about being against sports). HOWEVER, a university’s MAIN goal is to EDUCATE its students, not to provide athletic entertainment. If a university has to make cuts, sports should be right on the top of the list IMO, WAY beyond cutting whole departments. It is simply ridiculous that are priorities are skewed that much that we would consider cutting entire departments before cutting off some funds to sports.</p>
<p>Most of the pro-huge-deficit-producing-sports-programs posters have consistently bashed us pro-academia posters.</p>
<p>I have played club soccer since I was seven, and I have played varsity tennis for my high school for all four years (county, regional, and state champs).</p>
<p>That being said, the purpose of college is to learn, and become educated. These institutions were originally founded as EDUCATIONAL and religious training facilities. College is for getting a degree in something you are interested in and plan to pursue. College is not simply for sports. Someone earlier said that the purpose of college for him was to play ball and that sports are possibly the most important thing in his life. How nice for you. It is possible to participate in athletics outside of college- go join a league, etc. Colleges have been nice enough to provide athletics teams to promote health and satisfy the interests of their students. But athletics being given a higher priority than academics? That’s ridiculous. That is not the primary goal of a post-secondary institution.</p>
<p>Also, to anyone who raised the questions “why dont we cut humanities?” or “why not fine arts?” or “since when has the math department produced a profit?” are completely ignorant. All of these programs are EDUCATIONAL and thus serve the purpose of college. Not to mention they have been around and considered important for centuries. Humanities majors, music and theater majors, and math majors all have the potential to be leaders of our country or contribute creatively. Students solely concerned with athletics have the potential to play pro sports (maybe). I agree with being fit and healthy, as evidenced in my preface, but let’s be realistic here. College is for learning. Sports can be accessed outside of college. Academics should trump athletics every time.</p>
<p>Once again, the Rhodes Scholarship, one of the most prestigious awards given to scholars today, places a huge emphasis on a given student’s athletic accomplishments. Without sports, there would be no Rhodes.</p>
<p>Also, schools like Michigan, UNC, USC, and others rely on successful athletic programs to woo well-rounded, high-achieving students who appreciate a school’s athletic success in addition to its academic qualities. Lose sports, and you lose those quality applicants. I know that I certainly wouldn’t have come to UNC if it didn’t have great athletics to complement its academic prestige.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, but don’t make cuts to sports and make cuts to departments and you’re going to lose quality applicants that way as well. Trust me, an academic department is going to pull much more talent than an athletic department. Besides, if UMich, UNC, USC and places of those caliber lost sports funding they COULD sustain themselves with cutbacks. Those with HUGE athletic departments are capable of sustaining themselves.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The big times sports (basketball and football) pay for themselves at most schools. The only reason athletic departments lose money is because they have to throw huge amounts of money at sports that generate little, if any, revenue due to Title IX. I’m all for cutting funding for sports like Women’s Water Polo.</p>
<p>^ Cut all sports, make them self-funding, and then you won’t have to worry about Title IX anyways.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Sure, if you cut all funding for drama, art, and music as well to be fair.</p>
<p>Cutting big-time sports from university budgets would be a terrible decision in today’s economy. Basketball and football generate millions each year for schools, most of which goes back into their general scholarship funds. Cutting these programs would negatively impact the university in a whole host of ways.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not really, considering that there are drama, art, and music degrees. They are for academic enrichment and many times are requirements to get an ACADEMIC degree. I’m not aware of any “football” degrees and I don’t know of anywhere that requires you to play a sport for a major. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The majority of schools LOSE money because of their sports programs. Yes, some football schools break even, but only a tiny majority.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And don’t pretend that women’s and men’s sports are being treated equally either because of Title IX: </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Why does a coach need to make over $1 mill a year when academics are being cut all over the place. It is flat-out ridiculous. </p>
<p>[College</a> Sports | College sports | Study
shows most athletic departments lose money | Seattle Times Newspaper](<a href=“http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/collegesports/2010103078_ncaa21.html]College”>http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/collegesports/2010103078_ncaa21.html)</p>
<p>Not a great article for the overall country, but all I can find right now.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Exercise Science, Sports Management, and Coaching all come into mind (all three are currently offered at my school, UNC-Chapel Hill). </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Right, the article omits athletic boosters, who contribute millions to universities every year. Don’t forget about bowl games, which pay teams an average of $1 million a piece to participate, and general revenues from season tickets, athletic apparel sales, and the like. </p>
<p>Of course all 302 schools in the FBS aren’t going to make money off of their football programs. There aren’t 302 big-time football programs in this country, not even close. But you can bet schools like Michigan, Ohio State, Penn State, UNC, and every SEC school make bank off of their football teams. Basketball too. UNC’s basketball team alone was worth over $20 million last year. Cut those sports, and the universities will be out of a huge chunk of money, and applicants as well. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Of course there is a discrepancy in pay. People just don’t pay to see women’s sports like they pay to see men’s sports. Football and basketball make money, while women’s sports and less popular men’s sports like wrestling and volleyball and the like tend to cost universities each year. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Because the coach making $1 million+ per year is bringing a heck of a lot more than a million bucks into the university.</p>
<p>In the 2005-2006 season, UT’s football program ran a $43 MILLION dollar profit for the season. Ohio State made out with close to $30 million, while Michigan put close to $40 million in the bank. This is sheer profit, after all expenses are accounted for.
<a href=“http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/2007-01-04-ohiostate-finances-cover_x.htm[/url]”>http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/2007-01-04-ohiostate-finances-cover_x.htm</a></p>
<p>Like I said, get rid of these programs and these universities will suffer.</p>
<p>^ Cuse, I’ll show you ANOTHER article that shows that colleges are losing more money than gaining: </p>
<p>[News:</a> A (Money) Losing Proposition - Inside Higher Ed](<a href=“http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2008/05/16/ncaa]News:”>http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2008/05/16/ncaa)</p>
<p>Here’s another… </p>
<p>[Few</a> athletics programs in black; most need aid - USATODAY.com](<a href=“http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/2008-05-16-financial-study_N.htm]Few”>http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/2008-05-16-financial-study_N.htm)</p>
<p>Now, you show me ONE that says that overall sports are beneficial to a college and that colleges actually somehow gain money or talent by spending more on athletic programs than many academic programs.</p>
<p>Once again, I’m all for cutting sports that don’t make money. Cut synchronized swimming, water polo, volleyball, etc if you want. Keep football and basketball which generate tens of millions of dollars in profit each year.</p>
<p>The problem is Title IX won’t allow schools to do this, so they have to keep the money-draining sports along with the revenue-generating sports. The problem here isn’t with football or basketball-schools with good programs make tens of millions off of their teams every year. The problem is with Title IX.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>How many academic programs generate a $40 million profit each year? UT isn’t losing anything by continuing to fund its football program-it is gaining each and every year. Even smaller football schools like my own, UNC, make millions each year off of their football teams. Add in basketball, and the profits get even higher.</p>
<p>^ Even basketball isn’t making money. And, again, cut them completely and then there is no worries about Title IX. If they are making more money than getting, what is wrong with cutting them completely?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Wrong. About basketball:</p>
<p>Last season the Tar Heels posted a $16.9 million profit and, thanks in part to a lucrative merchandising agreement with Nike (nyse: NKE - news - people ), contributed $800,000 to the university for academics.</p>
<p>Source: [The</a> Most Valuable College Basketball Teams - Forbes.com](<a href=“http://www.forbes.com/2007/12/27/college-basketball-valuations-biz-sports_cz_js_0102basketball.html]The”>The Most Valuable College Basketball Teams)</p>
<p>So, why on earth would you cut a program that generate tens of millions of dollars in profit for your university each year? There is no downside to this-everybody wins.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Umm… you might want to read the title of the thread… Pro-athletics people are not here “bashing” the academic side of things. We all recognize that academics are the crucial part of the University. But athletics are very important at many schools too. </p>
<p>I’m still waiting for an example (just ONE!) of a drama department or music department that makes money…</p>