<p>So within a legacy debate, the question arose as to the fairness of athletic recruits. Not being a sports person myself, I feel ambivalent about the importance of athletic teams at colleges. I know they add to community spirit and provide entertainment and other benefits, but should colleges be in the business of subsidizing sports teams when their utmost priority should be academics? In Europe, at least in the country in which I reside, there are no college sports leagues and universities do not subsidize athletics (besides having basic installations). The very good public university system is low-cost for all who qualify--even so, I have chosen to send my kids to the U.S. for college, in part because of the more rounded experience. I know some teams pay for themselves and more at top sports universities, but with the growing financial problems of many, is it appropriate to start cutting some of those that are not self-supporting like UC Berkeley just did:</p>
<p>The college sports culture is a huge part of the American college experience at many, many schools in the US. You can debate the cost vs. benefits 'til the cows come home, but the bottom line is that sports are an important facet of college life. In my opinion, there are many ways that schools can cut cost without cutting sports teams. Sports are just the easist for a school to justify, in my opinion.</p>
<p>I think cutting non self-funding sports is just as appropriate, if not more so, than making other cuts due to budget issues. It doesn’t make sense to to not cut sports when the college is making cuts to academic classes, employees, facilities, reducing the number of admitted students, with the cuts possibly causing the students to have to take longer to graduate which costs them time and money. Some sports can be quite expensive when it’s a sport that requires a lot of traveling, expensive coaching, and expensive equipment. Students can still play sports without taking it to the expensive level and basically treating it as a semi-professional item.</p>
<p>No one likes cuts of any kind but it usually comes down to two choices - increase revenues or reduce costs.</p>
<p>Agree, for unis/colleges looking to cut expenses generally sports is only one area examined. Taking some “smaller” sports and moving to club is a great way for the students to continue inter-collegiate competition, continue the opportunity for student and fan participation and to create an environment where the sport is cost-neutral. My S’s sport moved to club after his freshman year and there were no major issues with the exception of the roster of competition. Another sport was scheduled to cut completely but the alumni stepped up and funded the sport to continue as club. I would feel the same way regarding any major that had minimal student participation and large faculty/facility expense…certainly colleges/unis examine those factors with the same scrutiny they give sports. All businesses whether college/uni or otherwise look for the biggest financial return with minimal impact. There is an ebb and a flow to what is in vogue both with regard to sports and to majors. Colleges/unis must constantly evaluate where they need to put financial emphasis. It’ simplistic to look at the situation from 10,000 feet and make judgement calls. Much tougher to balance everything for the colleges/unis.</p>
<p>D1 (and in some cases D3) football, basketball and ice hockey are the 3 that usually make money and bring together large masses of students, parents, alumni and the community. As an example - I LOVE baseball, but have trouble justifying the cost of airline and hotel expenses for a sport that usually cannot support itself with ticket sales. </p>
<p>My son is playing a club sport and having the time of his life. We pay the $500 fee to cover the cost. He has 2 practices a week and 1 or 2 games per weekend from Sept through March. For us this is perfect. </p>
<p>To me the question becomes - Who are the sports for?</p>
<p>My D’s D3 school charges no admission for any sporting events. Actually, they rarely charge admission to anything on campus. That doesn’t mean I think the teams shouldn’t travel. Also, the schools usually don’t pay “street” prices for either the travel or the hotels, and the kids are put 3/4 to a room.</p>
<p>Well sports are for the students, the community both campus and town and the alumni. Clearly some sports have more students, more community and more alumni support. You can’t generalize about a specific campus and sports in general. Back in my college day maybe 20 kids would got to the home football games, but everyone went to the mens soccer and women’s field hockey matches. The next college over had a massive football stadium they filled every fall weekend with a home game. That’s why colleges have to look at the picture for their specific institution and for the time we live in. Today my old college has a pretty active football comunity and women’s field hockey is a long gone memory. BTW my son’s club team travels and the size of the team is not diminished and the fans are not diminished. Nothing really happened except the roster of colleges they play changed. There are less coaches, less practices LOL, but no less enthusiasm. Does the NCAA get “money” from colleges that support NCAA sports?</p>
<p>Fixed that for you. Yes, universities need to look at saving money through cutting activities that do not have substantial impact on academics. Athletics, fine arts, glitzy landscaping, etc</p>
<p>if the goal of the university is to, in part, produce future leaders then cutting sports is a bad idea. the scholar athlete goes back to the greeks for a reason, scholar athletes have highly valuable life skills that are learned on the playing field, not in the classroom.</p>
<p>^^ That’s part of the rationale that jock schools like Harvard use to justify spending money on 41 Division I sports teams. (I don’t know how to use emoticons so select the one of your choice)</p>
<p>The problem is that many/most/all of the girls sports are money losers so, to cut costs, you have to cut girls and boys scholarships because of Title IX</p>
But cutting courses, educational staff, facilities, scholarships, academic programs, etc. would also be considered a ‘bad idea’. There needs to be a balance that works with the economic conditions of that particular college. If the college has no revenue issues then they may be able to afford to fly a lacrosse or rowing team around the country to compete or paying a coach millions of dollars per year but if they’re facing decreased revenues then they need to make budget cuts and sports shouldn’t be considered off-limits. There’s also compromise. The ‘leader developing’ aspect of team sports doesn’t need to developed only in a costly program - the skills can also be developed by participating in ‘club sports’ and the person still gets to play their sport. Cutting back on the cost of sports doesn’t necessarily mean eliminating them - just reducing their cost.</p>
<p>“Our findings will not be surprising to those involved in the governance of intercollegiate athletics. Ever-increasing demands for higher coaching salaries, more staff, better facilities, and more extensive travel have created a never-ending cost spiral. These demands continue to be met despite data that show athletics-spending growth is out-of-balance with growth in academic spending. At the median, public universities in the FBS spend about $84,000 per athlete annually but only $13,349 per student. Their athletics spending from 2005–08 grew 38 percent–nearly twice as much as spending on academics.”
(Note: FBS = Division 1 football)</p>
<p>“^^ That’s part of the rationale that jock schools like Harvard use to justify spending money on 41 Division I sports teams. (I don’t know how to use emoticons so select the one of your choice)”</p>
<p>My D is interested in playing sports in college. She is a scholar-athlete, and the choice of where she applies will depend on if the sport is available to her, or not.</p>
<p>If there is the possibility that her sport might be cut at one of her prospective choices, it will come off her list.</p>
<p>Students look at all sorts of reasons to attend colleges. Kids like my D see it is a vital. They love the sport and want to get an education and play their sport, too. </p>
<p>Colleges have to make tough choices. If they can’t fund it, they will look to find ways to cut it or look for alternative funding sources. No easy choices.</p>
<p>It’s tough for those students that decided on a campus and then have to cut it while a student is mid-way through their academic program. They have to decide whether to stay or transfer.</p>
<p>I would hate to see this turn into a athlete-hate thread, the same thing can be said about other college activities and esoteric majors. I personally think it’s wonderful that a tradition that yes, goes back to the Greeks, is upheld in the our country. I do think it is prudent in tough economic times to look at everything and to single out one area over another is a rather simplistic vantage point. Frankly if Harvard or any other college or university felt they could have an institution with no sports and developed a mission statement to that effect without it affecting their view of the caliber and voracity of their institution I’m sure that move would have been made long ago. Institutions make decisions every day about what they are willing to financially support and not support. There are plenty of kids that go to college everyday and don’t participate in any athletic endeavors…I’m sure there are plenty of kids that never take an art class or a theater class or a religion class or a philosophy class or partcipate in the student newspaper or the student radio station and perhaps some kids that never go see a performance over four years. How boring the world would be if we were all the same. I also don’t ever think I’ve heard of “Harvard” described as a jock school in my life LOL.</p>