<p>I thought universities were places where you study, do research etc. and that stadiums and circus were the places where athletes and other gladiators perform?</p>
<p>Money of course.</p>
<p>how do colleges make money out of recruited athletes?</p>
<p>Alumni donation, ticket sales, etc.</p>
<p>seriously? I would rather donate to my college in relation to its academic life (reserach papers, labs…) than for a football game which is, in my opinion, unrelated to the mission of a university</p>
<p>Money is the root of all evil, and in more ways than one.</p>
<p>Because a lot of the wealthy alums’ (especially in southern schools) favorite memories are of the football games in college not of a sophomore year math test. The head football coach at UT’s salary is $5 million a year and the assistant coaches make $625,000 dollars a year.</p>
<p>farfalla: Go ahead and attend a school with no sports program. Many exist and I’m sure you’ll be fully welcomed. If you don’t understand why athletes in a university setting contribute in a multitude of ways, then don’t strain yourself to understanding it.</p>
<p>The Duke of Wellington is often quoted as saying that “The Battle of Waterloo was won on the playing-fields of Eton”. Try to figure that out for a few moments. If nothing comes to mind, quickly move on and don’t let it bother you ever again.</p>
<p>Schools get lots of exposure from the sports teams. Kids from across the country see these teams and want to know more about the schools. Little Butler University, in my home state, has seen a large increase in the number of applicants based on their success in the NCAA. They didn’t instantly become known for their challenging curriculum, excellent pharmacy program and commitment to internships and practical learning. They increased their applications because people of the football team.
Yes it sucks, but a wealthy and happy alumni often means more scholarship dollars for merit aid.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Why do you have to be so aggressive? If I said something which upset you, then accept my apologies. All I am trying to do is understand the reason why american academic institutions spend part of their resources in non academic matters. If your reply is simply, “if you don’t understand, then passe ton chemin”, it will remain a mystery and does not contribute in the debate.</p>
<p>It’s not really “mystery.” Your OP is a poorly veiled rhetorical question intended to denounce “american academic institutions.”</p>
<p>“[You] thought universities were places where you study, do research etc.” That’s absolutely true, but athletics are included in the “etc.” for many universities.</p>
<p>FYI, I don’t care at all for collegiate sports.</p>
<p>Schools also get LOTS of money when their teams are shown on TV. </p>
<p>When you see those huge salaries that top football coaches are getting, in a round-about way, the school isn’t paying their salaries…ESPN, FoxSports, and CBS Sports are.</p>
<p>When an unranked team played against the #1 ranked football team last year and the game was televised, the unranked school went home with $1Million in its pocket.</p>
<p>*seriously? I would rather donate to my college in relation to its academic life (reserach papers, labs…) than for a football game which is, in my opinion, unrelated to the mission of a university *</p>
<p>:) Go ahead. Write that million dollar check. That’s fine. People have various reasons for donating. Your reason is as good as anyone else’s.</p>
<p>*favorite memories are of the football games in college not of a sophomore year math test. *</p>
<p>Oh please…NO ONE’S favorite memory is of a sophomore year math test. Everyone has fav memories of fun activities in college…no matter where you went.</p>
<p>Colleges just reflect the screwed up priorities of a society that will pay an Adam Dunn $12 million to hit .173 and a superb preschool teacher maybe $30,000.</p>
<p>Good sports programs are GREAT ways to get exposure for rising universities. Butler was already mentioned, but it is a prime example. Boise State is another one that comes to mind. But it seems like you’re implying why more reputable schools recruit athletes, not just big state schools. Sports are great money generators for the school and great ECs for college kids that love their sport and want to continue doing it at the college level, what’s wrong with that?</p>
<p>There’s really not much difference between recruiting athletes and recruiting students. Anyone who was recruited by a college coach will tell you the same.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Bingo…</p>
<p>If the OP wasn’t obviously from another country, this question would be rediculus…</p>
<p>However, seeing as the OP clearly isn’t from the states, lets explain how it works here:</p>
<p>1: Professional sports (aside from baseball) don’t really have feeder leagues, like, say the EPL has “Football” Division’s 1 and 2. The “feeder” system is collegiate teams in most profitable sports (Football, Basketball, Soccer, Hockey, etc.).</p>
<p>2: The NCAA supports all Olympic sports, and has said they will hold a championship for each sport represented in the olympic games as long as there are collegiate teams for said sport. The vast majority of the olympic training programs in the US are in the collegiate sector.</p>