<p>I never suggested that colleges sports aren’t important. I think at intercollegiate sports are a great part of the college experience, for participants and observers alike. But again, reasonable attempts to educate athletes must be made by these big sports schools.</p>
<p>And I have never agreed with John Thompson’s take on this matter. The money spent on Michael Graham’s basketball scholarship would have been better spent if it had been awarded to a financially stressed but diligent African-American underclassman who was determined to get his or her degree. It’s long been my opinion that for every athletic scholarship awarded by schools that fail to graduate its black athletes, a special companion scholarship should be established for students in need.</p>
<p>You can use them. The fine arts facilities are for any student taking fine arts classes. Nothing prevents you from taking fine arts classes if you want to. </p>
<p>Here is ESPN’s tool for looking at college athletic costs and subsidies (click 2010):</p>
<p>Notice that Student Fees and University Subsidies count as revenue to athletic departments. Also notice some schools have whopping student fee revenues: Central Florida, $17 million; Kent State, $10 million; Maryland, $9 million; Miami of Ohio, $14 million. They’re hitting up the history majors and the pre-meds to pay for the football coach!</p>
<p>Also notice the tiny number of schools where athletics actually pay their own way, with no university subsidy and no student fees. I count seven, though I might have missed one or two.</p>
<p>Auditoriums and performance theaters are not open for me to use. I wasn’t in any plays or concerts. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>OOOOOOOOOOH, and here comes the key argument in the whole anti-athletics party! But notice they don’t show the lack of other extracurricular activities who are able to get through without subsidies. Those drama departments, those student activities groups, etc.</p>
<p>I don’t have any problem whatsoever with college team members operating in their own world, where admissions standards and academics are watered down to nothing–operating as farm teams, as has been said. If the endeavor brings revenue, entertainment, and positive PR to the school, it benefits everyone. It’s not as if these players are taking slots that would otherwise have gone to non-athletes. Who is harmed here? We all know that many of these kids aren’t students in any real sense of the word. It’s actually better if that contingent doesn’t graduate, since they won’t be carrying degrees that misrepresent their credentials. Those student athletes who actually have an interest in academics will take advantage of their opportunities in college; they’ll find the time to study, etc. Those who don’t, won’t, no matter how much anyone tries to force feed them. And if they end up without a degree and without an NFL or NBA contract, are they in any worse shape than if they had skipped college altogether?</p>
<p>Er…Drama Departments are academic units of their schools. There are various and sundry student volunteer theater or performance groups that are not officially part of the Drama Department at many schools.</p>
<p>Not choosing to use a facility is not the same as not being permitted to use the facility. Auditions for dramatic and musical performances are normally open to all students. Anyone can try out. In many schools, there are various levels of student performance groups, so even the not-so-talented have a chance to perform. Unlike the varsity-athletes-only weight rooms and such, which are not open to any students other than team members.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You show me just one school that charges the students ten million dollars in drama department fees-- that is, ten million dollars that students are required to pony up, over and above tuition, that goes directly to the drama department. Just one school. I’m waiting.</p>
<p>Athletics “pay their way” in a lot of ways that are hard to measure:</p>
<p>1) Alumni loyalty. Alumni feel better about their school when it is winning at something, and are more likely to donate. </p>
<p>2) Name recognition (as mentioned above). The year after Bucknell won their first round NCAA tournament game, their applications soared. Result? Bucknell became more selective. Which lead to their moving up in the USNWR rankings. Which lead to them becoming even more selective. People who had otherwise never heard of Bucknell had the school put on their radar, and yes it was thanks to basketball.</p>
<p>hops_scout, I asked for an example of a school which charges students ten million dollars in student fees for the drama department. You offer me Southeast Missouri. Southeast Missouri has an enrollment of about 10,000. Let’s say that each one takes 30 credit hours a year and pays the $2/credit hour fee for the new arts center. Does that add up to $10 million a year? Oh, wait, no, it adds up to $600,000 a year.</p>
<p>Well, that’s because the majority of the sports in a university setting are not revenue sports. like football or men’s basketball. OTOH, it is only in the revenue sports that the student athletes have graduation issues. So, in general, the revenue sport athletes bring in money, and the graduation rates are not as good as the school’s graduation rate, although, we are not talking 100% graduation rates among the general population, either. It would be interesting to see a comparison of actual six year graduattion rates from each school compared to their athletic population. I believe most athletes in most of the other non-revenue sports DO graduate. Because of title 9, the schools have to offer similar scholarships to men and women and no women’s sports are revenue sports.</p>
<p>Do you believe the co-ed population does not benefit from having women athletes on campus? I think the issue is more complex than the usual argument makes it out to be, personally. JMO</p>
<p>Interestingly, the graduation rates for the publics after 5 years is 39%, for the general population, and for the privates in the low 50%, which is what the NCAA is saying they have to produce in order to compete, the same graduation rate as the privates, for the general population, so I will have to correct my orignal statement and say they bring in revenue AND their graduation rate is the same as the general population, and even better at the state schools.</p>
<p>That was a NEW fee. I’m not saying the university produces $10 million for the drama department, but it does charge fees just like it charges fees for athletics. SEMO also does not produce $10 million in student fees for the athletic department. But since you won’t provide proof of anything useful, I think I’m done here.</p>
<p>The irony of this whole situation…These revenue generating sports are made up of primarily athletes who don’t graduate, poor/underprivileged backgrounds–and they end up funding non-revenue generating (men and women) sports like golf, lacrosse, soccer, swimming/diving etc,etc …played primarily by affluent student-athletes.</p>
<p>Yes, the irony is astonishing and even further complicated by the fact that at the state school level, less than 40% of students graduate after five years. I believe the revenue athletes graduate at or above 50%</p>
<p>Totally agree poetgirl!! I am suprised the graduation rate is that high given the time commitment placed on these athletes. </p>
<p>From the OP:</p>
<p>“I for one am tired of seeing my federal tax dollars going to waste in the form of financial aid (grants) to scholarship athletes who leave school early, never to return, and whom had no interest in school in the first place! I’m a big fan of college sports, but colleges and society at large need to be mindful of the other students when financial resources are sparse”…</p>
<p>Totally disagree…most big time revenue generating sports are self supporting, they lose money supporting other sports as required by Title IX.
The law applies to an entire school or institution if any part of that school receives federal funds; hence, athletic programs are subject to Title IX, even though there is very little direct federal funding of school sports. </p>
<p>Not sure why your beef is with these ‘students-athletes’…</p>
<p>I don’t know about basketball, but I do know that in football, Division I college players graduate at a HIGHER rate that students of the same economic class/ethnicity on the same campuses. </p>
<p>And I think we give too shortshrift to the value of even one year of college. As a percentage of income, the enhanced value of one year of college over no college at all is actually higher than the enhanced value of a college degree over the one year. And the reason for that is simple: of the 30 fastest growing employment areas 2008-2018 estimated by the Department of Labor, 22 of them do not require a college degree.</p>
<p>My “beef” is with schools who do not create an envirornment that permits student-athletes to make reasonable progress towards a degree. The big time athletic departments have thrown up their hands and in the main, have completely failed to address this problem. There are two simple measures that would go a long way to help players whom are truly earnest about being educated; 1) restrict varsity participation to students whom have sophomore standing or higher. 2) Permit athletes to remain on scholarship until they graduate (perhaps for a total of 6 years). Have many schools adopted these proposals? Nope.</p>
<p>I think this would be easier to discuss if we could distinguish between “student athletes” and “moneymaking gladiators.” When we talk about a swimmer and a football player at a major school as if they were somehow the same thing in any respect, it confuses the issue.</p>