<p>
</p>
<p>My EDUCATION is dependent on athletics. So cutting athletics would have a detrimental effect on my ability to get an education. My university has done enough damage to my specific degree program.</p>
<p>Agree, athletic scholarships are just one aspect of the financial aid mix and I don’t believe there are “athletic scholarships” per se at Division III schools. Correct me if I’m wrong.</p>
<p>Poetgrl-
Every study of sports programs that make money, specifically college basketball and football, have shown that the money that comes in from those programs goes right back into them, and in many cases programs, like Rutgers, have actually cut the ‘lesser’ sports programs to fund things like football and basketball. Not many years ago, the division 1 programs used to justify the lavish spending on athletic facilities, scholarships and coaches salaries by arguing that the revenue they bring in benefits the whole school and that for example alumni give money that goes into scholarships and academics (during NCAA football games during the 70’s and 80’s they had ads for the schools claiming that), but a massive study was done by some economists, and they basically said the whole thing was bogus, that those programs basically only contributed to themselves (at least financially), that they had little impact on giving for academics and so forth. And likewise, the argument about the money makers subsidizing other sports has come under the gun, the money makers basically take any money they make and keep it, find ways to spend that they bring in, and little of it ever gets to the other sports, and as I just noted, at some programs actually takes funds away from other sports programs to subsidize the big ones.</p>
<p>True, momofthreeboys.</p>
<p>Division 3 schools don’t offer athletic scholarships.</p>
<p>musicprnt, at my school the football and men’s basketball would make money if they were the only two programs. But the baseball, track, women’s basketball, volleyball, softball, gymnastics, and soccer are so far in the red that the entire department is in the red. When the football team plays a “money game” that money goes straight to the female sports.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So what are you suggesting? Cut the salaries of College Presidents by say 15%? (The median salary for a Public college president is about $427,000 and about $100,000 high for privates. This is the median). Stop building dorm rooms that are better furnished then 4 star hotels? Make Professors teach one additional class per year? Bring operating efficiencies to their purchasing and planning organizations? What a radical idea!!!</p>
<p>As much as I believe athletics are getting over emphasized, there are many other areas where colleges have misplaced priorities and all of them need to be looked at. To answer the posters questions, athletics is an easier place cut then say administrators salary.</p>
<p>Well I know my school spent $65,000 last year to “find and hire” a new administrator. That administrator now makes $150,000 or more a year. And our president makes something like maybe $220,000 and receives a housing allowance PLUS the university pays for a house oncampus for the president.</p>
<p>High visibility sports programs, whether a student wants to play a sport or not, is often part of the campus experience.</p>
<p>One of the social activities for many is going to a game on the weekend. </p>
<p>For many students who are not interested in playing sports still want to be a part of games as a spectator. </p>
<p>My H’s alma mater (in the midwest) is one of those places - scoring football tickets is a huge deal. People come from all over the state to watch games. Same with my alma mater, although to a slightly less crazed level. </p>
<p>Some of those big ticket sports give the campus so much visibility that enrollment is given a boost. Take away some of those sports? Numbers might drop.</p>
<p>^^ I believe there have been studies done that show when colleges garner national exposure through playoffs etc. the applications rise in the ensuing years. I guarantee you no one outside a very small region would have ever heard of Seton Hall except for their team. Whether higher application rates = more income for the college is probably nebulous. Increased competition for seats might increase their ability to cherry pick better students which in turn might raise their rankings etc. etc. but then that just gets added to the pro-athletics side of the equation.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Assuming you are talking about a public university, why would enrollment drop? Hypothetically, if a state school were to eliminate it’s whole athletic department, selectivity might fall slightly, but since the school is in the business of educating kids from the state, it would just mean others who had been left out could attend. This scenario presumes that the money made from the big sports are not enough to cover the costs of all teams, and the removal of the whole athletics department would lower the COA for all. </p>
<p>I am not advocating this, I’m just thinking that for some that trade-off would be desirable, for others not so much.</p>
<p>I’m not arguing that colleges stop funding athletics nor am I saying they should strip them to the bones. But athletics is one area which is completely legal to segregate and remain exclusive and available to a select few while funded by the entire student body. In the arts at least there is a possibility to participate even if you are not good enough to be main stage. Backstage there are numerous opportunities to participate and contribute to what goes on front stage. Athletics are not the same. You make the team or you are relegated to fan, booster, or marketing of the team.</p>
<p>FWIW, my freshman is sitting at home this soccer season because his school district cut funding for the Freshman team. He was unable to make the higher level squads. Do I think it’s fair that this is the first year this cut impacted MY family? NO. Do I think it needs to be done to preserve the arts and other programs people do not like to fund. YES. </p>
<p>FTR, no football or basketball teams were cut.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’d be interested to see how big of a part of a university’s budget goes to the athletic department. I’ll bet it’s much smaller than people think. Therefore really eliminating the entire department would not reduce fees enough that would allow more people to attend a state school. The University of Illinois is $27,000 a year. I’m sure many of the other big state schools are similar…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Wrong. There are many ways to support the athletic teams without ever getting into a game.</p>
<p>^^shut down UC Berkeley’s football team and I guarantee you would have a big decline in admissions, and a huge decline in financial support from families such as Bechtel and Haas…people who donate 100 million dollar buildings to this “government owned school” because they believe in all of it’s programs including sports. Football is a huge part of the Cal culture. And Cal backers interests.</p>
<p>Ok, so there are many. Yet no examples given.</p>
<p>Extremely sad commentary on the state of our young people if they are choosing a school because of a winning basketball or football program of which they are not a player or direct participant.</p>
<p>Which is precisely why the system isn’t all bad here in the US. The choices of higher education run the gamut from the Big 10 and Pac 20 and SEC schools with their large campuses and big time sports to the Div II schools and the Div III schools with the emphasis on education and sports as an EC. You’ve got schools with very little athletic tradition and schools with huge athletic tradition. If you want to single out CCs favorite Ivy group, Dartmouth always had an athletic outdoorsy student bent, Brown, Columbia not so much. Harvard/Yale/Princeton always had something for everyone type of attitude.</p>
<p>It’s always ironic to read posts about someone betching about athletics and they are at a school with a long history and tradition of athletics. My instant thought was “why on earth did you pick that school?”</p>
<p>I said earlier if a college saw something positive or even neutral in getting rid of all athletics someone would have stepped up and done just that. I’m sure they could find enough anti-athletic students to fill the classrooms and dorms…or maybe not? My oldest hasn’t been to one football game at his college. Not one. It’s pretty easy to get involved in what you want to get involved in and pretty easy to not get involved if that’s your thing. From a financial perspective I’ve got to believe that colleges and universities know exactly what their athletic programs cost them and where the dollars come from and go to as well as understanding their facilities budget and their administrative and academic budgets. If they don’t, I’m sure in these economic times they are getting their arms wrapped around it.</p>
<p>denise: great athlete, great teams, great minds, great professors, that’s what young people admire and what inspires them to pursue schools that offer both.</p>
<p>what do you base your choices on? losing teams, lousy professors?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m not understanding why that bothers you? That presumes that the level of education received is somehow different at a college with big athletic tradition vs a college with no big time athletic tradition. I can’t make that leap. My sib went to a Big 10, I went to a small LAC with very little emphasis on athletics. The quality of my education was every bit as good as my Big 10 sib. Theres alot of high stats students from all over the world that are at UofM because of the caliber of the education…and football falls.</p>
<p>I would hazard a guess there are excellent profs at UofM that stay the heck away from the game and campus on those football falls, also, so I can’t buy any analagy that equates professorial competence with athletics.</p>
<p>
How can you ‘guarantee that’? Have they stated so or do you know the families personally? If they eliminated the costly sports completely from Cal I highly doubt they’d have many issues in still attracting top students. I certainly hope the only reason the Haas and Bechtel families are supporting the U is not simply due to sports. If it is, then it’s still great they’re donating but is it really true they wouldn’t donate at all if there wasn’t the big football team?</p>
<p>UCSD has no costly big sports program yet has some huge donors (including Irwin Jacobs of Qualcomm) and also manages to attract top students and has to turn many well qualified students away every year.</p>
<p>While I’m sure some donors are at least partially motivated to donate due to the rah-rah of the big sports there are a lot of donors more motivated by donating specifically to the school of engineering (Jacobs at UCSD, Samueli at UCLA and UCI - ever heard of the UCI football team?), others to arts, others to the medical school, others to the school of management, etc.</p>
<p>Sure - there are some students who won’t consider a college that doesn’t have the big sports to cheer for but likewise, there are some students who would rather attend a college where they know funds aren’t being diverted to costly sports and would rather not have to pay the additional fees that result. I’ve know some students on both sides of this equation. There’s an offset here although I don’t know what the ratio would be.</p>