<p>
</p>
<p>Unfortunately, this is far from true.</p>
<p>In fact, the most “expensive” cases - with subsidies far larger than Division III schools - are Division I schools such as Nevada-Las Vegas, Delaware, Eastern Michigan, Central Florida, and Air Force, all with subsidies greater than $20M annually, far above the largest Division III subsidy. </p>
<p>You noted 23 schools making a profit from athletics, which represents the top 10% of the 227 Division I public schools cited in the report. The group with a greater subsidy than any of the supposedly “expensive” Division III schools, however, is a total of 55 schools, nearly 25% of the Division I publics.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I suppose we simply have different values. I think it’s a terrible waste of resources for a sub-par public school like Nevada-Las Vegas to pour $32,000,000 per year of university funds into Division I athletics, when clearly there are other areas of the university that could better use those resources. But they “value” this, so we mustn’t criticize them?</p>
<p>Setting aside the issue of values, what exactly is your point in highlighting the most profitable athletic departments? Is it your contention that they are in fact dependent on athletics for survival? The point of discussion in this thread is whether or not colleges are dependent on athletics for survival. Clearly the schools that are losing money on sports do not depend on them for survival; in fact, quite the opposite: the sports depend on the school for survival. So that just leaves the profitable programs, and I see no evidence that any of those 23 cited schools depend on their athletic programs for survival, but perhaps you have insights I am missing.</p>