<p>
</p>
<p>But none of them were football players!</p>
<p>Too lazy to read all the posts but virtually every major college team even when playing a home game stays in a hotel the night before the game for many reasons already cited. SOP. And most stay in nicer hotels with lots of meeting room spaces and the ability to feed a large group. I doubt they pay close to the rack rates. The level of complexity and focus needed to play at that level requires total attention without outside distractions.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That may be your test, PG, but not the policy of real-life universities. There were 93,000 people at the USC-UCLA game. The students, alums and administration obviously support it.</p>
<p>The reason I refer to Spartacus is not because he was a slave, but because he was a gladiator–and that’s what I think today’s college football players really are.</p>
<p>I suspect the UCLA football hotel budget comes directly out of the UCLA alumni football boosters fund, not the UCLA budget or the state coffers. So the entire argument is pretty much moot.</p>
<p>I interviewed at a big school last year and spent the night in a hotel. Same hotel that all of the visiting football team uses when they come to town. When we went into the lobby, the lady walked up to the desk and told the front desk person that they were giving me a room through the university’s booster program. I think they get allocated a certain number of nights each year that the hotel donates…</p>
<p>I’m sure UCLA has a similar package deal so these rooms could have cost them next to nothing…</p>
<p>You are probably right, UCDAlum, but that will not satisfy those who don’t care where the money comes from; if the UCs are hurting, they won’t be satisfied until everyone associated with the UCs creates the appearance of suffering.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The boosters fund is just one pocket of money to pay for the hotel. The others are football ticket sales & television revenue. Nevertheless, UCLA’s athletic department is completely self-funding, so the money used to pay the hotel was private money raised to support UCLA athletics (in accordance with UC requirements).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Or until the Athletic Department starts to fund faculty salaries. :rolleyes:</p>
<p>Hotels are a minimal expense, frankly. My D’s school’s team has their own chartered plane, which sounds like a luxury but is really a matter of logistical practicality to ensure that the team members and staff (a large group!) all get to the same place at the same time and can be transported en masse. </p>
<p>Fortunately for UCLA, even losing football teams get a share of the money from the big media contracts and ticket sales since the league as a whole shares in the profit. In fact, UCLA and other PAC-12 teams will benefit from Stanford and Oregon’s appearance in bowl games this year. It really is a staggering amount of money that football brings in, whether we believe that should be the case on not. Below are the stats just for the upcoming bowl games. (By the way, the football players participating in the bowls do not get to go home for Christmas break like other students.) </p>
<p>2011 BCS Payouts</p>
<p>– Automatic qualifier conferences $145.2 million</p>
<p>– Non-automatic qualifier conferences $24.72 million</p>
<p>AQ Conferences</p>
<p>– Big Ten, Pac-10, SEC $27.2 million</p>
<p>– ACC, Big 12, Big East $21.2 million</p>
<p>– Total: $145.2 million</p>
<p>Non-AQ Conferences</p>
<p>– Mountain West $12.75 million</p>
<p>– WAC $4.05 million</p>
<p>– Conference USA $3.34 million</p>
<p>– Mid-American $2.64 million</p>
<p>– Sun Belt $1.94 million</p>
<p>– Total: $24.72 million</p>
<p>Others</p>
<p>– FCS conferences $2.25 million</p>
<p>– Notre Dame $1.7 million</p>
<p>– Army $100,000</p>
<p>– Navy $100,000</p>
<p>– Total: $4.15 million</p>
<p>Read more: [SBJ:</a> BCS payouts grow along with big shares for Big Six conferences - NCAA Football - Sporting News](<a href=“http://aol.sportingnews.com/ncaa-football/story/2011-01-24/sbj-bcs-payouts-grow-along-with-big-shares-for-big-six-conferences#ixzz1f1YPvScx]SBJ:”>http://aol.sportingnews.com/ncaa-football/story/2011-01-24/sbj-bcs-payouts-grow-along-with-big-shares-for-big-six-conferences#ixzz1f1YPvScx)</p>
<p>It seems to me that the question really is what benefit the university as a whole gets from the football program, and if it’s enough to justify allowing the use of the university name for this side business. How the money flows is part of that, but it also impacts on prestige, admissions, general alumni donations, etc. I think this calculation is probably different for public and private universities. I guess what I’m saying is, if the football program is making a profit, why shouldn’t it be required to share some of that money with the rest of the university to help pay faculty salaries, or whatever? Maybe boosters would give less, but maybe they wouldn’t.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Even when looking at it through your racial lens, that seems like a dubious reason, as the number of African American students on football and basketball scholarships is pretty small compared to the total number of African American students in universities.</p>
<p>There are 346 NCAA Division I schools, of which 120 are in the Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS). The total number of football scholarships per school is 85, and the total number of men’s basketball scholarships per school is 13. This means that there are about 10,200 total football scholarship athletes in NCAA Division I FBS, and 4,498 total men’s basketball scholarships in NCAA Division I. That compares to 20 million total students in degree granting colleges and universities. For a K-12 student, choosing to emphasize football or basketball over academics probably does not improve one’s chances of completing a degree.</p>
<p>Note that few of these football and basketball players make it into the NFL or NBA. And fewer of those have long term careers in these professional leagues. Even many of those who do [eventually</a> go broke](<a href=“http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1153364]eventually”>http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1153364).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>As long as you look at all programs in that same fashion.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>From what I have seen, those programs who are making a profit are passing some of that money along. But it’s not a part of the general fund nor should it be. </p>
<p>I know, for example, my alma mater (small school) did make money from football. But it appears as if they did not because that money was spent in other places for other sports who do not bring in revenue.</p>
<p>
What do you mean by “programs?” If you’re talking about the English Department, it seems to me that you would have a different set of criteria than for an extra-curricular program like football. It’s hard for me to think of an analogue in other departments to these “revenue” sports.</p>
<p>After paying for the other money losing sports only a few school still have a profit left to distribute. Wisconsin has a few million net profit that goes to the academic side. Most of that comes from the BTN and logo clothing sales.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Drama and fine arts theaters. University Centers, the bookstore, residence life, recreation services, etc. Heck, depending on the school there can be several of these departments that are connected but independent.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is out of the orginial scope of this discussion: UCLA wasted taxpayers’ money. Your question is valid but it should be addressed to the entire NCAA sport program and deserves another thread. UCLA should not be a scapegoat.</p>
<p>I don’t think it’s out of scope at all–the question is whether the football program is wasting money on hotel bills that it should be paying back to the university. Indeed, if it doesn’t want to be pressured to cough up more money to the university, it needs to watch what it spends its money on. Maybe the hotel bills are justified, I don’t really know. But it’s the kind of thing, obviously, that makes people ask questions (in a way even bigger expenditures, like a mammoth coaching staff, don’t).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That isn’t “extra money” the football is spending instead of giving to the university. The hotel is an expense and it is apparently in the budget. Any revenue left over after expenses are paid is the profit and that is what should be considered to be shared with the general fund of the university.</p>
<p>"But it’s not a part of the general fund nor should it be. "
says who? The football program would not exist at all if it were not associated with the University, which is under severe budget cuts. Why should it be exempt from having to cough up more $$ to insure the health of the academic institution that enables its very existence?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Why? Why do all other programs have to be looked at the same way as football? In case you haven’t heard, football isn’t directly related to an academic mission of a university, no matter how much you personally enjoy it or no matter how much money it makes. Again, I don’t care - if hotel rooms are standing operating procedure, well, then so be it – and it’s possible the money comes out of boosters and not out of the general fund – but you keep trying to elevate the football team as being equal in importance to the other functions / departments / programs of a university, and I don’t believe that it has to be so. Honey, it’s recreation. Fundamentally.</p>