cut college sports funding already!

[L_Hopital]

<p>

I’m still waiting for an example (just ONE!) of a drama department or music department that makes money…

</p>

<p>While you wait, learn to read.</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>

[pacheight]

<p>annachristina: “Colleges have been nice enough to provide athletics teams to promote health and satisfy the interests of their students”</p>

<p>your statement above is wrong. Colleges provide athletics because it’s educational, very educational. Leadership, focus, practice (aka hard work) are the most important life skills you can teach. Give me a B student who played water polo over an A non-athlete student any day for my company</p>

[hops_scout]

<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.

</p>

<p>Fine arts are 100% educational? Theatre, dance, music, etc? 100%? </p>

<p>But, there’s 0% educational benefit in athletics? </p>

<p>I can read thanks. Is it your turn to try?</p>

[romanigypsyeyes]

<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>Except that this is the pretty rare exception. MOST colleges lose a ton of money on sports. You have to make generalizations. Should we just cut the programs that are losing money? Then what if the football team is losing money? What if they make money one year and then lose money the next, are they gone for good? </p>

<p>Again, I have NO issue with sports being at universities. But when we start cutting academic programs before we look at reducing the funds to athletic departments, something is VERY wrong.</p>

<p>EDIT: Btw, how much of that profit do you think actually goes back to the university? I’d venture a guess and say that profits in sports stays in the athletic department, with no reduction in university money going to the department. Could be wrong though.</p>

[Cuse0507]

<p>

Except that this is the pretty rare exception. MOST colleges lose a ton of money on sports. You have to make generalizations. Should we just cut the programs that are losing money? Then what if the football team is losing money? What if they make money one year and then lose money the next, are they gone for good?

</p>

<p>Football and basketball always have the potential to make big bucks, so they’d always have to stay. In the South, baseball can get big, and in the Midwest, hockey can be pretty wild too. Aside from those sports, I’d be fine if a university wanted to ditch the programs that lost money. The problem is, they can’t (Title IX).</p>

<p>

Again, I have NO issue with sports being at universities. But when we start cutting academic programs before we look at reducing the funds to athletic departments, something is VERY wrong.

</p>

<p>The universities that spend the most on athletics are typically the ones that earn the most from athletics. It makes no sense to get rid of programs at big-time sports schools because these programs are self-sufficient. The universities in these cases have to invest in their football and basketball teams initially, but one successful year will pay off the investment and still generate a huge profit. Obviously, the situation will be a little different at smaller schools that typically struggle in sports.</p>

<p>Additionally, big-time sports programs provide colleges with publicity that they would not be able to get otherwise. This in turn generates more interest in the school and pays dividends in the long run.</p>

[hops_scout]

<p>

Except that this is the pretty rare exception. MOST colleges lose a ton of money on sports. You have to make generalizations.

</p>

<p>ALL colleges lose a ton of money in MANY “nonacademic” functions. Should all of those be cut too?</p>

[charlie135]

<p>What about the Trinity mens squash team. (The most successful sports team of any NCAA sport in history its on the range of 11-13 years of no defeats). They survive on 7,000 a year and all the players make the deans list.</p>

<p>Should we cut them? </p>

<p>I do think sports should get booted before any academic department goes. What good is a B- Biochemistry major who played football in a top Lab? The answer is not very good, you want the best of the best!</p>

[Cuse0507]

<p>

I do think sports should get booted before any academic department goes. What good is a B- Biochemistry major who played football in a top Lab? The answer is not very good, you want the best of the best!

</p>

<p>How many biology programs generate $43 million per year in profits? Keep the sports-they pay for themselves, and then some. </p>

<p>

What about the Trinity mens squash team. (The most successful sports team of any NCAA sport in history its on the range of 11-13 years of no defeats). They survive on 7,000 a year and all the players make the deans list.</p>

<p>Should we cut them?

</p>

<p>Nope-I’d keep them. $7k per year is nothing for a university.</p>

[romanigypsyeyes]

<p>

ALL colleges lose a ton of money in MANY “nonacademic” functions. Should all of those be cut too?

</p>

<p>Could you be more specific so that I can answer that question?</p>

[collegebound41]

<p>i heard TCU and Boise are getting around 3M for being in a bowl game due to the cut of ticket profit they will receive</p>

[hops_scout]

<p>What more do you need? It’s not a difficult question really…</p>

[romanigypsyeyes]

<p>

What more do you need? It’s not a difficult question really…

</p>

<p>How about an example? If there’s MANY surely you could name a couple.</p>

[soccerguy315]

<p>Should the universities cut their support of student groups? They just drain university funds.</p>

<p>Why should a school build a new rec center? Waste of money…</p>

<p>Why should a school build a new dining hall? Waste of money…</p>

<p>see, schools use their money to make the college experience better for their students, and to make themselves more attractive to prospective applicants. That is the reality. If the schools didn’t think that their sports teams were worth it, THEY WOULDN’T HAVE ANY SPORTS TEAMS.</p>

[pacheight]

<p>Colleges provide athletics because it’s educational, very educational. Leadership, focus, practice (aka hard work) are the most important life skills you can teach. Give me a B student who played water polo over an A non-athlete student any day for my company</p>

[leaftye]

<p>^^ Haha, no one cared enough to comment when you posted this last time. I only post for my post count.</p>

[hops_scout]

<p>

How about an example? If there’s MANY surely you could name a couple.

</p>

<p>-Department of Public Safety non-educational
-Rec Center non-educational
-Student Life non-educational
-We are opening an autism center non-educational
-Marching Band semi-educational…</p>

<p>I could go on, but the brain ain’t working this morning…</p>

[charlie135]

<p>My college’s Chemistry department has received $18 million in grants over the last 8 years, it is self sufficient. But, most sports teams still get college funding even if they lose money. It is okay for a department to lose money because this is a school and not a gym. What good is a school that produces some good football players who cant get good grades or a good education because funding has been cut for academics. I’ll tell you, its a ****-poor school and a good athletic program.</p>

<p>Also, I would like to see a topflight lab who will take a B biochem student who played water polo over the A+ biochem student who did not play sports.</p>

[Cuse0507]

<p>

My college’s Chemistry department has received $18 million in grants over the last 8 years, it is self sufficient. But, most sports teams still get college funding even if they lose money. It is okay for a department to lose money because this is a school and not a gym. What good is a school that produces some good football players who cant get good grades or a good education because funding has been cut for academics. I’ll tell you, its a ****-poor school and a good athletic program.

</p>

<p>Your chem department received $18 million over 8 years. UT’s football team made $42 million for the university in one year. Looks like football is more valuable to the university from a cash standpoint than chemistry.</p>

[rocky0012]

<p>Hofstra cut its football team…hope everyone is happy</p>

[charlie135]

<p>Yes but how many football programs are making that much? Additionally, it does not matter if any academic department loses money because they are not expected to make money. What have those football players done for the world? Look at our pro athletes, they are a bunch of dirtballs. On the otherhand, scientists actually help people in this world. How many UT players will go pro? I bet more than 60% of chemistry majors go to grad school and get REAL jobs.</p>