<p>I guess you’d also have to distinguish between a couple of different kinds of revenue. If you’re talking about TV revenue, logo sales, and stuff like that, it seems to me that the university has a very strong case to demand its cut. After all, as menloparkmom suggests, the football program can’t go free-lance.</p>
<p>On the other hand, to the extent the income is donations from boosters, it does seem sensible to say that if they’re willing to pay for gold-plated plumbing fixtures in the athletic facility, God bless 'em.
<p>How can you possibly compare drama and fine arts – which are part of the mission of a university, REGARDLESS of whether they are money-making or money-losing – to football, which isn’t?</p>
<p>So what defines “related to an academic mission?” It is DIRECTLY related to the academic mission of the program that I was in as an undergraduate. I spent as much time on the football field, in the gymnastics gym, on the track, etc as I did in a normal classroom setting. And no I was not a student-athlete.</p>
See, this is where I can’t agree with you. I don’t think football and basketball at these big schools can be called “athletics” in the sense of a college extra-curricular activity. They are really much more like adjunct businesses. You might compare them to the University Press, I suppose, but even there the difference is pretty obvious.</p>
<p>The Regents of the University of California, that’s who.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And the short answer is, ‘No’. The longer answer is that the UC Regents set the policy – that athletic departments would be self-funding – and the answer is still, ‘No’.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Perhaps the campus could “demand its cut”. But that is not policy today. </p>
<p>Perhaps some on this thread do not agree with the (state) policy enabling D1 sports? Fine. But why pick on the Southern Branch? Take it with the Regents in Oakland.</p>
<p>a University is still considered to be a university, regardless of whether it has a football program or not. A college football program by its very nature, is dependent on its association with a college. It would not exist without support of that college, which goes way beyond the funds donated by football boosters. So if it benefits when the college is healthy financially, it should cut back when other, more essential academic programs are also facing cuts. Football fans should realize it is unwise to bite the hand that feeds them.</p>
<p>Many places the departments that are doing well continue to receive their money and continue to do well. The departments who are struggling see jobs get cut and budgets get cut until they can turn things around. Why should a college (namely the athletic department) be expected to be different?</p>
<p>ROFL! People MAJOR in theatre - my school had an entire school built around theater majors. People MAJOR in fine arts. They are no different from the history, biology or English departments in that regard - as they are academic subjects that are core to the mission of a university. Do people major in football performance? (Indeed, are there any elite schools that have physical education majors?) </p>
<p>Again - I don’t care if staying in hotels is standard or not, and I think the amount of money is probably peanuts in the scheme of things. But please, stop elevating football prowess to equal status to academic subjects that are the core reason that a university exists.</p>
<p>Football may not the be degree, but it (and athletics in general) is an avenue for many different people on campus to get a college degree. Fine arts is just the same-- you don’t have to be a fine arts major to be involved.</p>
<p>Personally, I have a bigger problem with taxpayer money paying for entertainment and a college education for prison inmates and illegal aliens than I do it supporting entertainment for law-abiding students, their parents, the community, and football fans everywhere.</p>
<p>Marketing, broadcasting and journalism are majors that are not in the least dependent upon having a football team. Neither is computer programming or business administration.</p>
<p>Remind me again, what top / elite schools offer coaching, physical education, kinesiology, athletic training, event management, and / or physical therapy as majors?</p>
<p>The country, the state, everybody is broke.
Why? In general overconsumption with undertaxation. The UC’s are in the state its in because of Proposition 13, along with increasing salaries, poor management…not because of a football teams stay at a hotel.
Athletic departments are hurting because of Title IX, and football/basketball teams supporting non-revenue men and women’s sports.
Football may be a bad investment. Perhaps we can even move to the conclusion that competitive sports should not be a main focus of an academic institution. </p>
<p>But this is hardly a call to action by the public. I would be more concerned with the apparent self serving agendas of universities, which runs in opposition to the mission of education and scholarship.</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>But not in my state. </p>
<p>“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>Ah, but it does, just not in the way you’re thinking of it. Basketball and football players often get full scholarships, and increasing attention when there are socio-economic problems at home. They have better access to counselors, better access to emergency aid, better access to tutors, and usually better academic advising. (and I don’t have any problem with that, except I wish all low-income students had the same.) And for this reason, in my state and elsewhere, the players have higher rates of graduation than those of the same racial/ethnic/socio-economic class who are not athletes. </p>
<p>And graduation isn’t everything either. Studies have shown that the lifetime earning differences between those who have some college and none is greater than that between some college and graduation. </p>
<p>Want to show me where I said they were dependent? I said “involved.” </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well I guess that requires a definition of “elite.” Would you consider LSU, Illinois, Michigan, Ohio State, Penn State, Texas, Wisconsin, Florida, Kentucky, Miami “elite?”</p>