University of Florida Eliminates Computer Science Department, Increases Athletic Budg

[quote name='GBAstar']Talking out of my ass? How many other Division 1 scholarship athletes are on CAG? I can speak of experience that I'm sure few if any have.
[/QUOTE]

Anecdotal

[quote name='GBAstar']His article is disgustingly old and doesn't go into the depth as why athletic departments run a defecit.

If schools only kept the money makers and sports that people followed or didn't suck in money you'd be left with Football, M&W Basketball, Men's Ice Hockey, and probably track and field.

The fact is that isn't legally possible due to Title IX. So you have money pits like women's hockey, lacrosse, swimming, diving, etc that bring in no money.[/QUOTE]

More talking out of your ass.

[quote name='GBAstar']And WTF do you think boosted enrollment does? Derp... bring money back to the school![/QUOTE]

Top unis have a limited amount of spots, they typically fill those spots and turn down many applicants. So more student applicants =/= more profits.
 
[quote name='dohdough']Yeah, I'm with dmaul on this one. I have a hard time hating on college sports anymore for his reasons. It's not without it's problems obviously.

I have to agree that the IT industry and HR depts have the whole cert thing messed up though.[/QUOTE]

Yeah I don't disagree either, it's just a funny headline to get people to pay attention.

I found it amusing that one of the articles I read quoted an Indian from an Indian university who was chastising the University of Florida. Come on this is America, do we really want to give up the ball that easy.
 
[quote name='camoor']
Top unis have a limited amount of spots, they typically fill those spots and turn down many applicants. So more student applicants =/= more profits.[/QUOTE]

With state's slashing higher education budgets state schools have been upping enrollments to record numbers to help raise more money.

The catch is they also don't want to hurt themselves in the rankings--and a lot of rankings (i.e. US News) put a lot of weight on the average test scores and high school GPAs of the student body. So schools are hesitant to just dig deeper into the applicant pool and lower standards to up enrollment.

So any thing that can help up the overall number of applicants a school gets is a plus as a deeper pool makes it easier to bring in more students without dropping standards. And having big time sports is a help as lots of smart kids would still like to go to a school where they can party and enjoy sports etc. i.e. having a great basketball program makes Duke more appealing to many kids than some equally outstanding academic school with small time sports.

But again, the rub is most schools spend a lot of money on sports teams that no one cares about as people grow up fans of the big state university's, so it's just another thing that keeps those universities on top and makes it harder for other universities to rise up the rankings.


But even as a professor, I'm not the best to have an objective opinion on this stuff since I: 1) Don't care much about undergrads. 2) Grew up a big college football and basketball fan as my state doesn't have any pro teams.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']With state's slashing higher education budgets state schools have been upping enrollments to record numbers to help raise more money.

The catch is they also don't want to hurt themselves in the rankings--and a lot of rankings (i.e. US News) put a lot of weight on the average test scores and high school GPAs of the student body. So schools are hesitant to just dig deeper into the applicant pool and lower standards to up enrollment.

So any thing that can help up the overall number of applicants a school gets is a plus as a deeper pool makes it easier to bring in more students without dropping standards. And having big time sports is a help as lots of smart kids would still like to go to a school where they can party and enjoy sports etc. i.e. having a great basketball program makes Duke more appealing to many kids than some equally outstanding academic school with small time sports.

But again, the rub is most schools spend a lot of money on sports teams that no one cares about as people grow up fans of the big state university's, so it's just another thing that keeps those universities on top and makes it harder for other universities to rise up the rankings.


But even as a professor, I'm not the best to have an objective opinion on this stuff since I: 1) Don't care much about undergrads. 2) Grew up a big college football and basketball fan as my state doesn't have any pro teams.[/QUOTE]

If you're a big profitable program then I agree.

However for the smaller schools, I don't believe that spending millions necessarily gets more enrollments (or if it does that the negligible increase is worth it). My pet theory is that it's more about alumni money but when it comes to the small schools I'm also skeptical about that.

I think we are at least pretty close in opinion, I am taking beef with the college sports team fanboys.
 
[quote name='camoor']If you're a big profitable program then I agree.

However for the smaller schools, I don't believe that spending millions necessarily gets more enrollments (or if it does that the negligible increase is worth it). My pet theory is that it's more about alumni money but when it comes to the small schools I'm also skeptical about that.

I think we are at least pretty close in opinion, I am taking beef with the college sports team fanboys.[/QUOTE]


I can't even tell you how WRONG you are on this. It's not even worth debating.

Anyone here from NC or GA? It's has been PROVEN that the success of the Georgia Southern football (IAA/FCS National Champions 1985, 1986, 1989, 1990, 1999 and 2000) program and the Appalachian State University (FCS National Champions 2005, 2006 and 2007) program have dramatically increased the enrollement in those two programs.


Georgia Southern:

Georgia Southern's athletic teams are known as the Eagles and compete in NCAA Division I FCS as members of the Southern Conference. The Eagles compete in baseball, basketball, football, golf, tennis, volleyball, soccer, softball, swimming and diving, cross country and track and field.[41] The football team has won six NCAA Division I-AA national championships (1985, 1986, 1989, 1990, 1999 and 2000). The university's baseball team has participated in the College World Series twice (1973 and 1990).[12] The university has two different cheerleading squads, including an All-Girl Squad and the Coed Squad. There are twenty-two women that were chosen for the All-Girl squad and seven men and women consist of the Coed Squad.[42]
The university offers intramural teams for all varsity level sports, equestrian events, fencing, and judo.


AND


The past 10 years have represented the most significant period of growth in the University’s more than 100-year history. Not only has the University grown in enrollment, but it has also grown in physical size. With a Campus Master Plan in place, the University has continued to expand most recently with the addition of the 1,001-bed residence hall–Centennial Place. In addition, the University completely renovated and significantly expanded the Zach S. Henderson Library.[10] The institution also recently completed the construction of the Eugene M. Bishop Alumni Center that will serve as a gathering place for alumni and friends of the University.[11] The Center for Wildlife Education and the Botanical Garden have also been expanded. Today Georgia Southern has more than 20,000 students, more than 2,000 faculty and staff, and 117 programs of study at the bachelor’s, master’s and doctoral levels.


Appalachain State:

http://theapp.appstate.edu/content/view/2990/1/



University experiences 25 percent increase in freshman applications Tuesday, 13 November 2007 by ANNE BAKER
Intern News Reporter

It’s never too early to plan for college.

This phrase seems to be more relevant each year as Appalachian State University sees a steady increase in applications.

As of last Friday, according to the admissions office, freshman applications for admittance to the university beginning fall 2008 totaled 8,218.

This is approximately a 25 percent increase in applications, as around 6,300 had been received last year at this time, Director of Admissions Paul N. Hiatt said.

Some people might attribute the growth rate with the win over the University of Michigan’s football team on Sept. 1, as well as the two consecutive national championships.

Sophomore elementary education major Megan A. Donovant said, “When someone asks you where you go to school and you tell them ASU, the first thing they usually say is that they know where the school is because we won a national championship in football. Without that, I don’t know if as many people would know about the university.”

However, other factors play a large role in the university’s application surge.

“Almost everyone is aware of the Michigan victory…athletics did bring a lot of focus to the university, but it also brought focus to all the other positive things that are happening here,” Hiatt said.
 
[quote name='CaseyRyback']http://ctsportslaw.com/2011/03/03/fiesta-bowl-shows-uconn-the-price-of-admission-to-bcs-football/

That is what I found through google. They also lost their coach as they were flying back from the game, so they got screwed over financially and then they lost the coach that had built their program into a Big East contender.[/QUOTE]


UConn's football program doesn't lose money. They got back doored into the Fiesta Bowl that year because they won a tie breaker (based on conference record) that put them in the Fiesta Bowl because they were the Big East champion which is a BCS conference based on it being a powerhouse conference ten years ago; in the years that Miami and Boston College were still part of the league and schools like Pitt and Syrcause were still a powerhouse.

That was a horrible game for them to be in because UConn doesn't draw well (Fans don't travel). Don't forget that UConn was just FCS/1AA as little as 15 years ago.

I think it might be the newest Division 1A / FBS program to ever reach a BCS bowl game.

Also, losing Edsall was not a factor. He coached UMaryland to a 10 LOSS season.

Edit: The only bad thing that came from losing Randy Edsall was hiring Paul Pasqualoni (former syracuse head coach). That was a really poor hiring and the only good thing Pasqualoni did was ride McNabb and D. Freeney to a top 10 ranking before imploding a once powerful Syracuse program.

In fact the hiring of Pasqualoni cost UConn more money then the fiesta bowl fiasco

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2011...ll-donor-wants-money-back/UPI-19171296005776/
 
More education:

Sports save schools: Colleges are adding sports to boost revenue and increase enrollment

http://news.gaeatimes.com/sports-sa...boost-revenue-and-increase-enrollment-166876/

Yet dozens of schools across the country are making the same decision Pacific did — to add sports rather than reduce them — and have done so for years, The Associated Press learned by reaching out to all 95 of the multisport conferences in the NCAA’s Divisions I, II and III.
Overall, the AP found those colleges plan to add a total of 174 new teams and drop 59 over the next two years.
The reasons aren’t always economic — complying with rules that demand gender equality in sports and that require Division III schools to carry a minimum of 12 sports starting in 2010 also play a role. However, the economy keeps popping up as an important and often critical reason for the expansion, particularly in Divisions II and III, where athletes often don’t receive scholarships...

...“There is a perception out there from Division I that adding sports just consumes all the money,” said Adams State athletic director Larry Mortensen. “But at our level it’s just the opposite — generating sports adds revenue. It generates enrollment.”


Edit: Another good read

http://athleticbusiness.com/articles/article.aspx?articleid=3841&zoneid=15
 
big deal. CS programs has one of the highest rate of attrition, so they probably had too few students to justify it. Besides, there's a saying that Computer Science is as hard as engineering, as useless as liberal arts. It's one of the worst field to go into as you'll be expected to work overtime and in the weekends with no extra pay, and is the easiest to be outsourced to India where they'll work for slave wages. The university is just doing their students a favor.
 
[quote name='rumblebear']big deal. CS programs has one of the highest rate of attrition, so they probably had too few students to justify it. Besides, there's a saying that Computer Science is as hard as engineering, as useless as liberal arts. It's one of the worst field to go into as you'll be expected to work overtime and in the weekends with no extra pay, and is the easiest to be outsourced to India where they'll work for slave wages. The university is just doing their students a favor.[/QUOTE]

Things are pretty bad in general. The blue collar job market sucks shit and there aren't many white-collar jobs left where you aren't expected to work overtime and in the weekends with no extra pay (IE salaried)

Doctors, lawyers, accountants, I don't think anyone has it particularly good anymore, it's only the top 1% that are living high on the hog.

If you know of a 9-to-5 white-collar job where you have total job security and you get paid for overtime let me know.
 
[quote name='CaseyRyback']http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/2008-05-16-financial-study_N.htm

It is a few years old, but your point is complete bullshit. It hasn't been proven time and time again. It has been proven time and time again that athletic departments are a money pit.[/QUOTE]

19 college Division 1 programs made money according to that article. It's not true of every school but cut the point this is the University of Florida which brings us to...

http://money.cnn.com/2007/10/18/news/companies/florida_gators.fortune/index.htm

"In 2006 the school's athletic department took in $82.4 million in revenue - that's No.1 one in the SEC and No. 5 in the country." Yep, almost $83 mil...total money pit... and the dates match up too.

Now to be fair both articles use old figures and Florida has lust some its sports luster since then, but then again perhaps that's why they've chosen to invest more into athletics and get back some of that lost revenue.

And while agree that far too many schools throw too much money into athletics over academics some to the point of near academic ruin. I also agree that athletics do not fund the rest of the school's programs. In fact, pretty much all the revenue they make (if they do) goes right back into athletics or adminstrative salaries. My guess is that $83 million in revenue never left the athletic department's hands so to speak. However, I can also assure that in this instance, for the University of Florida, athletics are in fact not a money pit (well at least til they have some sanctions leveled against them thanks to Urban Meyer).
 
[quote name='Duo_Maxwell']19 college Division 1 programs made money according to that article. It's not true of every school but cut the point this is the University of Florida which brings us to...

http://money.cnn.com/2007/10/18/news/companies/florida_gators.fortune/index.htm

"In 2006 the school's athletic department took in $82.4 million in revenue - that's No.1 one in the SEC and No. 5 in the country." Yep, almost $83 mil...total money pit... and the dates match up too.

Now to be fair both articles use old figures and Florida has lust some its sports luster since then, but then again perhaps that's why they've chosen to invest more into athletics and get back some of that lost revenue.

And while agree that far too many schools throw too much money into athletics over academics some to the point of near academic ruin. I also agree that athletics do not fund the rest of the school's programs. In fact, pretty much all the revenue they make (if they do) goes right back into athletics or adminstrative salaries. My guess is that $83 million in revenue never left the athletic department's hands so to speak. However, I can also assure that in this instance, for the University of Florida, athletics are in fact not a money pit (well at least til they have some sanctions leveled against them thanks to Urban Meyer).[/QUOTE]

Where do you thiink the revenue the school gets for apparel and merchandise goes?

The saying what's good for the goose is good for the gander fits here. Certainly they (academics administration) aren't able to dip their hands into the athletic funds but a flourishing athletic program brings money back into the school. Just think of the advertisement the school gets each time it's on College Gameday or a similar program. You can't even begin to measure how valuable that marketing is and donors love it too!
 
[quote name='GBAstar']Where do you thiink the revenue the school gets for apparel and merchandise goes?[/quote]

Well now you're talking about something that the schools only get a cut of, but like I said in most cases I believe it goes right back into athletics program expenses & administrative salaries. The question you should ask is why shouldn't it go back into athletics? Personally I believe it merchandise dollars should stay with athletics. Because let's face facts, you don't sell tens of millions of dollars in merchandise because of your biology department.

[quote name='GBAstar']
The saying what's good for the goose is good for the gander fits here. Certainly they (academics administration) aren't able to dip their hands into the athletic funds but a flourishing athletic program brings money back into the school. Just think of the advertisement the school gets each time it's on College Gameday or a similar program. You can't even begin to measure how valuable that marketing is and donors love it too![/QUOTE]

Now you're talking exposure & that's precisely why dollars are spent on athletics. Exposure drives the money train in college athletics. But the hard truth is colleges sometimes pay out for that exposure, at least in the short run. It takes years of near constant success to build an athletics program that can sustain itself. Heck why do you think teams agree to bowl games still in football? Unless they are a top tier program they often lose money or break even on the venture, but they also get TV time and exposure for the school that they almost never get otherwise.


Edit: And for all those interested in some more recent figures... http://www.businesspundit.com/the-12-most-valuable-teams-in-ncaa-football/ Football team alone apparently made 41 million in profit in 2009. Now obviously they've done worse in the past couple years so look for that number to drop off, but it's not had to see why a school such as Florida would invest more into athletics. Agree with it or not, for them it's more money/better business.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Who truly benefits from college football? Alumni who absurdly judge the quality of their alma mater based on the quality of the football team. Coaches such as Nick Saban of the University of Alabama and Bob Stoops of Oklahoma University who make obscene millions. The players themselves don't benefit, exploited by a system in which they don't receive a dime of compensation. The average student doesn't benefit, particularly when football programs remain sacrosanct while tuition costs show no signs of abating as many governors are slashing budgets to the bone.

If the vast majority of major college football programs made money, the argument to ban football might be a more precarious one. But too many of them don't—to the detriment of academic budgets at all too many schools. According to the NCAA, 43% of the 120 schools in the Football Bowl Subdivision lost money on their programs.
Click to expand...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304743704577382292376194220.html

That's according to the NCAA. Wow.
 
[quote name='camoor']http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304743704577382292376194220.html

That's according to the NCAA. Wow.[/QUOTE]


Yes. FBS schools at 85 scholarships at piece at 10's of thousands of dollars plus facilities and coaches salaries don't always make money for the school.

If you took the time to read any of the articles I posted you would find out that in all other divisions football programs bring money into the school if nothing more then via enrollment
 
[quote name='GBAstar']Yes. FBS schools at 85 scholarships at piece at 10's of thousands of dollars plus facilities and coaches salaries don't always make money for the school.

If you took the time to read any of the articles I posted you would find out that in all other divisions football programs bring money into the school if nothing more then via enrollment[/QUOTE]

Erm, the NCAA doesn't exactly have a reason to lie about Colleges not making money, if you know what I mean.

If there was a way to further fudge the numbers in favor of showing profitability then they would have exploited it.
 
[quote name='camoor']Erm, the NCAA doesn't exactly have a reason to lie about Colleges not making money, if you know what I mean.

If there was a way to further fudge the numbers in favor of showing profitability then they would have exploited it.[/QUOTE]


I'm going to assume you know very little about how college athletics are structured so I'll give you a pass.

That article was about "football bowl subdivision". FBS. Do you know what the difference between FBS, FCS, Division II and division III are?

There is a huge difference and the costs of running the programs are vastly different.

Everything below FBS and FCS brings in money via enrollement because there are no scholarships or it is very limitied. FCS has about 65 scholarships and FBS has about 85. That is millions of dollar spent just on student athletes tution; not to mention costs of staff and facilities and transportation.

The lesser programs are getting 100+ kids who are all paying their own way. You look at the NESCAC schools in New England (Bates, Bowdoin, Colby, Amherst, Tufts, etc.) and these are all money makers because you have 100+ kids, most of whom are paying $30,000 a year to go to school AND play football. Now because most of those schools only have a few thousand students you can see how that boost in enrollment is profitable for the school.
 
[quote name='GBAstar']I'm going to assume you know very little about how college athletics are structured so I'll give you a pass.[/QUOTE]

Gee thanks.

[quote name='GBAstar']That article was about "football bowl subdivision". FBS.
...
Everything below FBS and FCS brings in money via enrollement because there are no scholarships or it is very limitied.
[/QUOTE]

Where's the proof? Stop pulling stuff out of your ass.
 
[quote name='camoor']Gee thanks.



Where's the proof? Stop pulling stuff out of your ass.[/QUOTE]


I put this thread to rest over a week ago. There are articles on the two most obvious examples from Division 1 football championship subdivision (FCS) - Georgia Southern and Appalachain State as well as articles talking about small time college football (several hundred schools).

You can hate on athletes and athletic programs all you want but the handful of millions of dollars the larger programs may run in the red is made up for by increased exposure. It will be a cold day in hell before schools are willing to axe these programs. If taxpayers are truly concerned that schools are spending more then they take in (in the books) on athletics then petition the NCAA to get rid of title IX and cut all the money sucks including most all women's programs
 
[quote name='GBAstar']I put this thread to rest over a week ago. There are articles on the two most obvious examples from Division 1 football championship subdivision (FCS) - Georgia Southern and Appalachain State as well as articles talking about small time college football (several hundred schools).

You can hate on athletes and athletic programs all you want but the handful of millions of dollars the larger programs may run in the red is made up for by increased exposure. It will be a cold day in hell before schools are willing to axe these programs. If taxpayers are truly concerned that schools are spending more then they take in (in the books) on athletics then petition the NCAA to get rid of title IX and cut all the money sucks including most all women's programs[/QUOTE]

I don't "hate on" profitable ventures.

But at least 40% of the programs are losers, just like your arguements
 
No, according to your article only 40% of FBS programs are losing money and that may be up for debate as I'm sure it doesn't take into account the exposure that some of these programs bring the school... and that exposure equals $$$

When I played college football there was somewhere between 110 and 120 FBS programs however that number is continuing to grow (I guess the schools that have recently bumped up from FCS to FBS are stoooooooopid).

You're not taking into account the other several hundred schools in FCS, Division II and Division III.

Now when someone does a study on how much the dance programs, the band, the cheerleaders, the club sports, intramurals and the rest cost the universities then I'll be all ears because those programs bring in NO MONEY and they spark very little OUTSIDE interest in the school itself.
 
[quote name='GBAstar']No, according to your article only 40% of FBS programs are losing money and that may be up for debate as I'm sure it doesn't take into account the exposure that some of these programs bring the school... and that exposure equals $$$

When I played college football there was somewhere between 110 and 120 FBS programs however that number is continuing to grow (I guess the schools that have recently bumped up from FCS to FBS are stoooooooopid).

You're not taking into account the other several hundred schools in FCS, Division II and Division III.

Now when someone does a study on how much the dance programs, the band, the cheerleaders, the club sports, intramurals and the rest cost the universities then I'll be all ears because those programs bring in NO MONEY and they spark very little OUTSIDE interest in the school itself.[/QUOTE]

LMAO

Who is saying there is no place for sports in college? It's great to teach students the benefits of phys ed and team sports. We had a intramural volleyball team and one of the professors coached us in his spare time - it was great fun.

But who is naive enough to think that college football or baseball are really about phys ed? It has nothing to do with the mission of the college. If the NFL wants a farming system then they can pay for it, lord knows they have the money.
 
Easy enough to me. If you don't like that a college has a football, basketball or baseball team then don't go to that college. Why would you want to if you think that they are a waste of money. You know freedom of choice and all that.
 
[quote name='Pliskin101']Easy enough to me. If you don't like that a college has a football, basketball or baseball team then don't go to that college. Why would you want to if you think that they are a waste of money. You know freedom of choice and all that.[/QUOTE]

My tax dollars are subsidizing college sports. You better believe I have a problem with that.
 
[quote name='camoor']My tax dollars are subsidizing college sports. You better believe I have a problem with that.[/QUOTE]

Bingo. I don't have a problem with subsidizing education but subsidizing sports, particularly when the most major sport, football, is treated as the minor/farm league for one of the most profitable sports in America, I damn well will have a problem with it.
 
Yep, that's the issue.

The NFL and NBA should be subsidizing college sports--or start their own minor leagues to take kids out of high school like MLB does. Or the rules should change and require athletic departments to be abolished if they can't at least break even. The latter would be tough to implement without abolishing Title IX though since women's sports are a huge money loser and schools are required to offer an equal number of men's and women's sports under Title IX.
 
Title IX provides equal access to a lot more than just sports.

Even if we're talking exclusively about access to sports, why shouldn't women have equal opportunities in public universities? There are benefits to being a college athlete - things like discipline, teamwork, leadership, something interesting to put on your resume, and networking. There's also a chance that their athletic skills could be used directly in a career as a professional athete, a coach, or an employee of an athletic eqipment or apparel company. Why should men have access to these benefits at a college level, but not women?
 
You want to complain about it? Dont start with how good or bad sports are for college start with funding being cut to high schools so that there are very few well rounded programs, start with governors who approve cuts, start with American failing education system.


This was my original problem with the article...you take something extremely complex that has multiple problems on several different fronts with miles of red tape and boil it down to the age old..."duurrr college atheletes are dumb..durr"

That is an extremely easy and lazy way to talk about it.
 
I understand the point about tax dollars. You could also say that it is a society problem. In a society where athletes makes millions of dollars a year and needed professions (doctors and teachers for example) make only a portion of that it could be considered backwards. I am not into college sports as far as watching buying hats shirts etc but there is a market from Vegas to hometown spirit etc. Like the coliseum was to keep the masses distracted and cheering. Entertainment is all fine and good but to what cost? Competition is good and strength is good but to what cost?

People are fanatic over their sports and college is no exception even if it is a loss of money that might be put to a better use.

One of my favorite movies about the disease of sports in youth and society is varsity blues. While a little cheesy it made a good point.
 
[quote name='chiwii']Title IX provides equal access to a lot more than just sports.

Even if we're talking exclusively about access to sports, why shouldn't women have equal opportunities in public universities? There are benefits to being a college athlete - things like discipline, teamwork, leadership, something interesting to put on your resume, and networking. There's also a chance that their athletic skills could be used directly in a career as a professional athete, a coach, or an employee of an athletic eqipment or apparel company. Why should men have access to these benefits at a college level, but not women?[/QUOTE]

And that is the rub, and why Title IX was put in place.

But we can't have it both ways. Keep Title IX in place and most schools are going to lose money in their athletic departments as people don't care about women's sports thus it doesn't sell many tickets or merchandise.

And schools could keep women's sports and money losing men's sports around by just doing them on a smaller scale. Create regional conferences with other schools in driving distance to cut down on travel costs etc.

There's just no need to do money losing sports on the large scale that football and men's basketball are with lot's of road trips requiring flights and hotel stays etc.

Doing them more locally/regionally still affords access to sports, networking and all you list while not having the huge travel expenses incurred by keeping the non-revenue sports in the same, huge conferences as football and men's basketball.
 
[quote name='Soodmeg']VB is a great movie.

But then the questions becomes why do you hate a guy for just doing what is provided for him. We live in a country were companies spend millions to find loop holes so they dont have to pay any money to anyone. All legal...so why should an athlete garnish so much hate for getting paid for a sport...even if its in the form of college credit.

Its American true and true.

Plus...and this is the biggest thing Athletes both professional and college make up what? 5 percent of the human population? For every 1 athlete who is good enough to play in college there are about 10k people who are not. So you want to smash the hopes and dreams of about 20k people country wide for what? This also doesnt take into account that only a handful of college athletes are doing anything past college in the first place.....believe it or not most of them are in it for the education and will go on into work force.

Maybe because I played sports in college on a scholarship that I am a little biased but I never understood why everyone wanted to take my only way to get to college but its fine for little johnny to skate by because his great uncle built a wing for the school.

There is a lot of problems regarding how colleges work.. I dont understand why we has a society pick on just athletics when there are just as many other forms of ways to skate through the system.[/QUOTE]

Well you can relax, I don't see it changing anytime soon.

Colleges should be arming students to win the information revolution. Colleges should be inspiring the next scientific breakthrough.

Instead they're busy covering up horrific scandals involving the coaching team or trying to figure out how to keep their dumbass fratboy QB out of jail.

America's getting dumber by the minute and you and all of your jock friends are going to be the major beneficiaries.
 
[quote name='camoor']My tax dollars are subsidizing college sports. You better believe I have a problem with that.[/QUOTE]

Your tax dollars subsidize a great many things that you most likely will never use and may in fact dislike. If you live in a state with a pro sports team it's pretty much a given some of your tax dollars are paying for that stadium they play in. I don't like the way lots of government owned or subsidized companies are run, yet that doesn't mean I get to keep my tax dollars away from them. But I think we all get it by now, you're arrogant and you hate all things sports.
 
[quote name='Duo_Maxwell']Your tax dollars subsidize a great many things that you most likely will never use and may in fact dislike. If you live in a state with a pro sports team it's pretty much a given some of your tax dollars are paying for that stadium they play in. I don't like the way lots of government owned or subsidized companies are run, yet that doesn't mean I get to keep my tax dollars away from them. But I think we all get it by now, you're arrogant and you hate all things sports.[/QUOTE]

Did I advocate not paying your taxes? No, never.

I don't hate sports either.

I'm just a man with an opinion. And my opinion is that state funding of popular sports sucks. So many more worthy programs out there - education, environment, firemen and policemen. So many needy people who could really use that money - homeless folks, starving folks, the disabled.
 
[quote name='Soodmeg']
But then the questions becomes why do you hate a guy for just doing what is provided for him. We live in a country were companies spend millions to find loop holes so they dont have to pay any money to anyone. All legal...so why should an athlete garnish so much hate for getting paid for a sport...even if its in the form of college credit.

Its American true and true.

...

Maybe because I played sports in college on a scholarship that I am a little biased but I never understood why everyone wanted to take my only way to get to college but its fine for little johnny to skate by because his great uncle built a wing for the school.
[/QUOTE]

Yeah, but we hate those companies too. Along with the people who get free passes because of who their family is. The only people who likes them are the ones who relate to them. You know, other companies or people who get by because of mommy and daddy.
 
Soodmeg VB is a good movie another one is Blue Chips but is more about boosters and recruiting. It had Shaq in his debut and Larry Bird (at I think was his real home in French Lick).

Anyway I understand that professional sports players are elites in their field and there are less of them then doctors... teachers etc so yes I agree the pay should be up there but millions upon millions a year is still IMO sad. Entertainment is a must in society but when as a society we are so hooked on it that millions are going hungry, jobless, homeless etc... yet we feed the machine by betting, buying merchandise, tickets etc etc etc we need to take a hard look at our priorities.

I am not saying sports are bad but the amount of time and money spent on them are. I think you mentioned some people who would never have a chance without sports... well if we changed our priorities then those people would have a chance and millions of others who can't make it as a pro athletes would have a chance as well. Will it change? Probably not.

Check out Blue Chips. It was more relevant when it came out but still a good movie.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U4c5Ch6CDcs
 
Last edited:
[quote name='Pliskin101']Soodmeg VB is a good movie another one is Blue Chips but is more about boosters and recruiting. It had Shaq in his debut and Larry Bird (at I think was his real home in French Lick).

Anyway I understand that professional sports players are elites in their field and there are less of them then doctors... teachers etc so yes I agree the pay should be up there but millions upon millions a year is still IMO sad. Entertainment is a must in society but when as a society we are so hooked on it that millions are going hungry, jobless, homeless etc... yet we feed the machine by betting, buying merchandise, tickets etc etc etc we need to take a hard look at our priorities.

I am not saying sports are bad but the amount of time and money spent on them are. I think you mentioned some people who would never have a chance without sports... well if we changed our priorities then those people would have a chance and millions of others who can't make it as a pro athletes would have a chance as well. Will it change? Probably not.

Check out Blue Chips. It was more relevant when it came out but still a good movie.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U4c5Ch6CDcs[/QUOTE]


OT but I think it's messed up that an athlete who takes performance enhancing drugs or a stimulant or other illegal substance runs the risk of being banned from their profession, or even worse, dragged through a congressional hearing but an actor/musician etc. that has a lifelong addiction to who knows what or is a habitual DUI/OUI offender is allowed to continue to participate in their medium.
 
[quote name='GBAstar']OT but I think it's messed up that an athlete who takes performance enhancing drugs or a stimulant or other illegal substance runs the risk of being banned from their profession, or even worse, dragged through a congressional hearing but an actor/musician etc. that has a lifelong addiction to who knows what or is a habitual DUI/OUI offender is allowed to continue to participate in their medium.[/QUOTE]

Easy way to solve it - stop funding sports with my tax dollars. Get the government out of commercial sports.

Take away baseball's monopoly. Take away state-subsidized stadiums. Take away state funding of colleges when they funnel money to loser football programs.

If you don't want gubmint in your sports then don't let sports take my money. If you like the state subsidies then live with the BS that follows.
 
[quote name='camoor']Easy way to solve it - stop funding sports with my tax dollars. Get the government out of commercial sports.

Take away baseball's monopoly. Take away state-subsidized stadiums. Take away state funding of colleges when they funnel money to loser football programs.

If you don't want gubmint in your sports then don't let sports take my money. If you like the state subsidies then live with the BS that follows.[/QUOTE]


Your rant had nothing to do with my comments above; and do you believe there are no state or federal funded venues for the arts? Do those same stadiums not hold concerts or graduations?

Besides I've explained this to you have a dozen time. The huge majority of football programs across all of the NCAA (Division III, Division II, Division 1 FCS and Division 1 FBS) do NOT lose money.
 
[quote name='GBAstar']Your rant had nothing to do with my comments above; and do you believe there are no state or federal funded venues for the arts? Do those same stadiums not hold concerts or graduations?

Besides I've explained this to you have a dozen time. The huge majority of football programs across all of the NCAA (Division III, Division II, Division 1 FCS and Division 1 FBS) do NOT lose money.[/QUOTE]

Funny you mention this - I was speeding on a federal highway and had to goto federal court. In the same session a bunch of potheads had been busted because they had been caught on a federally funded arts center (Wolf Trap). Apparently the "String Cheese Incident" had been playing and an off-duty FBI officer decided to go down and bust some hippies. :lol:

So yeah - when you're at a federally funded center you abide by federal law, and at a state-funded arts center you abide by state law. It's not anything goes.
 
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/story/2012-05-15/texas-athletics-spending-revenue/54960210/1

Article in USA Today on 2010-11 revenues and expenses from the D1 schools.

Notable is the huge gaps between the top and the rest. Particularly with Texas who made over $150 million (they spent $133 million), while the 2nd highest Ohio State was $18.5 million behind that.

Also notes that only 22 of the 227 D1 schools made a profit in that year. Note that's for the whole athletic department, not just football.

There's a table at the top that shows revenue, expenses and subsidy amounts for eacy of the 227 schools. Not sure why the table says its 2006-2011--the article makes clear that it's just 2010-11 revenues and expenses.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='dmaul1114']http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/story/2012-05-15/texas-athletics-spending-revenue/54960210/1

Article in USA Today on 2010-11 revenues and expenses from the D1 schools.

Notable is the huge gaps between the top and the rest. Particularly with Texas who made over $150 million (they spent $133 million), while the 2nd highest Ohio State was $18.5 million behind that.

Also notes that only 22 of the 227 D1 schools made a profit in that year. Note that's for the whole athletic department, not just football.

There's a table at the top that shows revenue, expenses and subsidy amounts for eacy of the 227 schools. Not sure why the table says its 2006-2011--the article makes clear that it's just 2010-11 revenues and expenses.[/QUOTE]

And even then, amazing how the expenses exactly match the revenue for some schools

Minnesota Big Ten $78,924,683 $78,924,683
Mississippi Valley State SWAC $4,182,130 $4,182,130
Missouri State Mo. Valley $13,829,559 $13,829,559

But I'm sure all of these schools are being completely honest with us :roll:
 
[quote name='camoor']And even then, amazing how the expenses exactly match the revenue for some schools

Minnesota Big Ten $78,924,683 $78,924,683
Mississippi Valley State SWAC $4,182,130 $4,182,130
Missouri State Mo. Valley $13,829,559 $13,829,559

But I'm sure all of these schools are being completely honest with us :roll:[/QUOTE]

I'm not sure what the problem is?

Quite frankly I would be more inclined to believe that athletic departments would hide income so that they could show an overall loss then profit. What benefit to they get from showing a profit? Less funding I would suppose...

How much money over the operating budget to you think the music department is? Theatre? Research?

Again Outside of Division 1 (FBS and FCS) athletics are a money maker for colleges and universities because they bring in tuition money.
 
[quote name='GBAstar']I'm not sure what the problem is?

Quite frankly I would be more inclined to believe that athletic departments would hide income so that they could show an overall loss then profit. What benefit to they get from showing a profit? Less funding I would suppose...

How much money over the operating budget to you think the music department is? Theatre? Research?

Again Outside of Division 1 (FBS and FCS) athletics are a money maker for colleges and universities because they bring in tuition money.[/QUOTE]

Did you even read the article?

Cliffnotes version: when times get tough, taxpayers get sick of subsidizing pigskin chucking competitions.

If we saw the honest expenditures, I'm guessing the popularity of state subsidies would wane further...
 
That's the issue. State funds shouldn't subsidize college athletics. These programs need to be able to support themselves or go away.

State funding should be subsidizing teaching and research and the other essential missions of universities. Not extra curricular activities. Those need to fund themselves or be paid for with student fees if students want them.
 
What is lost in all of this is that at the University of Florida the athletic dept is administered by the University Athletic Assoc (a non-profit that reports to the UF President). Public funds are not used for coach's salaries at UF (unlike FSU). The UAA usually donates money to UF's general fund each year.

When I attended UF, the UAA funded a major library renovation (iirc). The closing may have something to do with the opening of the new University as it probably will have a CS Dept. There is probably a lot more to the big picture than just CS Dept closing and Football/Athletics getting more funds.
 
[quote name='ufskenney']What is lost in all of this is that at the University of Florida the athletic dept is administered by the University Athletic Assoc (a non-profit that reports to the UF President). Public funds are not used for coach's salaries at UF (unlike FSU). The UAA usually donates money to UF's general fund each year.

When I attended UF, the UAA funded a major library renovation (iirc). The closing may have something to do with the opening of the new University as it probably will have a CS Dept. There is probably a lot more to the big picture than just CS Dept closing and Football/Athletics getting more funds.[/QUOTE]

Read the thread.

We know there are a choice few schools that make money on football - but the vast majority are losers. Major losers.
 
[quote name='camoor']Read the thread.

We know there are a choice few schools that make money on football - but the vast majority are losers. Major losers.[/QUOTE]


WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT!?!?! I have explaind to you many many times that MORE schools MAKE money from athletics then those who lose money. You choose to focus on the 90 or so division 1 schools that lose money.

Why are you ignoring what I have stated over and over and over in this thread.
 
[quote name='GBAstar']WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT!?!?! I have explaind to you many many times that MORE schools MAKE money from athletics then those who lose money. You choose to focus on the 90 or so division 1 schools that lose money.

Why are you ignoring what I have stated over and over and over in this thread.[/QUOTE]

I haven't seen any evidence.

You just talk about opinion and the relative value of getting more student applications and a bunch of nonsense.
 
[quote name='camoor']I haven't seen any evidence.

You just talk about opinion and the relative value of getting more student applications and a bunch of nonsense.[/QUOTE]


I linked several articles and gave two clear examples of schools where football programs were a big part of increasing enrollment.

There isn't a person familar with the App State or Georgia Southern programs that would agree with that assesment.

I understand you don't like athletes. That is fine.

What you don't understand is that the athletic programs at schools aren't the only ones that lose money. The bigger picture that needs to be evaluated is whether or not the university itself is losing money.

Large corporations have several different departments. Do they axe one just because it's losing money?

Besides that your nifty little studies don't take into account the money brought in from renting out athletic facilities, donors, gift, etc that aren't considered altheltic income but are income for the university that would NOT be there if the athletic programs did not exist.

Do you think Duke University would LOSE or GAIN money if they cut basketball? Syracuse? Kentucky?

Hell what about the Nike money that gets funneled to Oregon or Underarmour to Maryland?

There is so much money that goes to these schools because of athletics that is NOT considered income for the athletic department.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top