<p>
Yes, but that would leave half as large of a pie for university sports administrators to divide. ;)</p>
<p>There is an enormous difference between college football and basketball players on the one hand and non-revenue athletes on the other. The NCAA always points to “Athletes’ Graduation Rates” as being higher than the general student population without noting that football and basketball player rates are significantly lower.</p>
<p>Athletes’ graduation rates would be expected to be higher since they have access to resources that the general student population does not (tutors, class selection, preferred housing/boarding, personal academic advising, etc.)</p>
<p>The exorbitant money spent on college athletics is not a failure of the free market, it is a failure of regulation. Colleges are willing to lose money on sports as long as they keep alumni donations coming in. Why do alumni continue to donate? Tax writeoffs.</p>
<p>Most football programs require membership in the alumni association (and corresponding dues and donations) in order to be allowed to buy season tickets. </p>
<p>If Congress eliminated the deductability of university donations, I believe a big chunk of money (and the corresponding corruptions and skewed priorities) would disappear from athletic programs.</p>
<p>I think basketball provides 12 scholarship athletes. that is a rounding error even if all 12 would not normally qualify with regular academic applicants.</p>
<p>Every college athlete faces a tougher road to graduation even with tutors, housing preference etc. The time commitment and travel they face makes the academics much tougher than the average college kid has to face. I believe we all agree some kid that needs to work 20-30 hours a week faces a tough road with school in comparison to other students. Why are athletes different?</p>
<p>An athlete “works” 20-30 hours per week, but has many other normal life chores taken care of for him.</p>
<p>A regular student might work 20-30 hours at an actual job in order to pay tuition (in addition to significant student loans) but will need to do his own grocery shopping, laundry, academic scheduling and more.</p>
<p>Athletes have travel commitments, but so do students who commute from home every day because they don’t have a scholarship to pay for housing. Which is more taxing - one out-of-town trip per week for a game in season or two hours commuting every day year round?</p>
<p>Athletes get a great deal that colleges are eager to provide based on the donations they bring in. Having non-revenue athletes included in the same reporting group as football/basketball players allows schools to show numbers that are not embarassing.</p>
<p>Do you believe that BIG time sports are set up to benefit the athlete over the school or the school over the athlete?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, thank you, I am rather aware of the nature of slavery, having come to the USA to do my doctorate in 19th century American history. Of course it is not slavery; that’s why I described it as an “echo”.</p>
<p>Look at the social system from a certain perspective. You have poor, mostly black people who grow up in areas with poor school systems and very little employment. Then mostly white, rich men compete to buy them to do perform physically, in return for the promise of an education. The rich white men earn huge amounts of money by this. The young black men earn nothing, or next to nothing. But they can’t refuse because how else are they going to play the sport they are talented at?</p>
<p>The catch is this: if you “pay” the student athletes in the best programs? Then you can’t afford the other sports.</p>
<p>Most of the revenue sports fund the non revenue sports in the ADs.</p>
<p>I do, however, think the fact that the scholarships don’t fully cover the living and minor spending of the revenue athletes is exploitative.</p>
<p>Given that there are so few of these stars, I’m just not sure what the best solution is.</p>
<p>This may not be practical, but I think the best solution is for the universities to spin off the teams, which would become semi-independent professional sports clubs. They would pay their players in money, not education.</p>
<p>I’m not sure how that model would work in the US. I see your point completely , but I’m not sure you get the alumni donations without the games. The teams keep people donating and tied to the university. My husband endowed two chairs at his alma mater. He goes back there for the basketball. I think it’s complicated. </p>
<p>Yale makes a point of ignoring athletic recruiting. The alumni complain bitterly. And that’s Yale. Imagine other places. It’s complicated. But you are right in many ways</p>
<p>The other sports would be spun off too, so title ix considerations wouldn’t apply. There would still be sports teams at the universities, but they would be for the fun of admitted students, not a replacement for professional sports.</p>
<p>I think the money would end up being a wash. Yes you would lose a lot of donations, but you also wouldn’t be spending so much money. (And poor students wouldn’t have to pay the fees mentioned in the article).</p>
<p>You know even congress is involved in trying to get a football playoff set up instead of just the bowl games. Just fwiw</p>
<p>I don’t disagree with you, I just don’t think many "decision makers " see this as an option.</p>