Styleforum › Forums › General › General Chat › Are college athletics good or bad?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Are college athletics good or bad? - Page 3

post #31 of 228
9/19/10 at 10:50am
There are so many positives to athletics...

One reason I haven't seen mentioned is that college sports give high school athletes something to strive for. And I think high school sports are very important, because they are basically the only place left in our K-12 education system where kids learn hard work.
Reply
Reply
post #32 of 228
9/19/10 at 11:39am
Quote:
Originally Posted by StephenHero View Post
-Many, many schools make shitloads of money off of athletics. Texas pulls in $140 million or so with a budget of $95-100 million. That's about $40 million that gets put back into the academics or capital investment yearly.


Instead of adjectives, let's use numbers

"Of the 117 Division I-A programs, 40% reported an operating profit in 2001. But without state and school subsidies, only 6% made money."

source:

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/colle...es-study_x.htm


"A newly released NCAA report shows that just 14 of the 120 Football Bowl Subdivision schools made money from campus athletics in the 2009 fiscal year, down from 25 the year before."

source: http://www.journalgazette.net/articl...TS03/308249978

"Only 25 big-time collegiate athletics programs reported positive net revenue for the 2008 fiscal year, according to a new NCAA study of revenue and expenses at more than 300 Division I institutions. But that was six more than were profitable in 2006, and athletics expenses over all appear to be growing at about the same rate as revenues, rather than leaping ahead."

source: http://chronicle.com/blogPost/Few-Co...thletics/8540/

These show athletic departments as whole units. You'll find that if you look at football and basketball in isolation a few more of them turn profits, but those profits are used to subsidize the non-revenue producing sports.
Reply
Reply
post #33 of 228
9/19/10 at 11:45am
Give me a fucking break. You know what Michigan's endowment would look like if they didn't play football?
Reply
Reply
post #34 of 228
9/19/10 at 11:46am
Further, the notion of "attracting students" is probably a net harm. I may sound like an elitist dickhead when I say this, but the sort of student who is attracted to a school by its football program is probably not the kind of student I want at my university. My university (should be obvous from my location) is probably the second-best public university in the country academically (after Berkeley), but is still better known for its football team. Nevermind that our engineering school, law school, business school, and medical school are all in the top 10. Most of our other programs are also highly-ranked. Still, outside of academia, people think we're a "football school".
Reply
Reply
post #35 of 228
9/19/10 at 11:53am
Quote:
Originally Posted by ComboOrgan View Post
Further, the notion of "attracting students" is probably a net harm. I may sound like an elitist dickhead when I say this, but the sort of student who is attracted to a school by its football program is probably not the kind of student I want at my university.
Are you thinking about what you're saying at all? It sounds like you're really putting your education to good use. The more applicants a schools has, no matter their motive for attending, the more selective the school can be. And why do you give a shit what other people are interested in? Are you saying you have no extracurricular activities? You know you're on a message board with men's clothing enthusiasts right now don't you?
Reply
Reply
post #36 of 228
9/19/10 at 11:53am
Quote:
Originally Posted by StephenHero View Post
Give me a fucking break. You know what Michigan's endowment would look like if they didn't play football?

Correct, when donations attributed to athletics are factored-in, Michigan is one of the few schools which turns a profit.
Reply
Reply
post #37 of 228
9/19/10 at 12:00pm
If you can't figure out the mutually beneficial relationship between BCS level athletics and academic funding, you probably shouldn't be at Michigan.
Reply
Reply
post #38 of 228
9/19/10 at 12:06pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by StephenHero View Post
Are you thinking about what you're saying at all? It sounds like you're really putting your education to good use. The more applicants a schools has, no matter their motive for attending, the more selective the school can be. And why do you give a shit what other people are interested in? Are you saying you have no extracurricular activities? You know you're on a message board with men's clothing enthusiasts right now don't you?

That would be true if the increase in applicants was linear, but what I am saying is that I suspect it is not.

I am suggesting that the sort of student who would be attracted to a school because of its athletic department is probably not an excellent student. Perhaps there would be a marginal improvement near the bottom of the admitted applicants, but that doesn't impress me much. I think it does little good for my school to increase the quality of marketing and sociology majors it turns out. Sure this looks good in the brochure to be able to publish how "selective" we are, but that's an empty figure.

I'm in the graduate engineering school, which is ranked #7 in the country. We compete for top students with MIT, Cornell, Berkeley, and all the big names. How many top applicants do you think we lose because they want to go to a school with an academic reputation like MIT, rather than a football reputation?
Reply
Reply
post #39 of 228
9/19/10 at 12:12pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by rjakapeanut View Post
exactly, that's what i'm driving at. i go to a school that is part of the LSU system here in new orleans. i'm sure you've heard of LSU -- but i bet it's not because of their stellar budget management skillz. it's because of the stupid fucking football team. they continue to dump money into the program (that doesn't make any money btw.) when millions could be put to better use keeping teachers on staff, NOT dumping programs etc. it personally affects me. that's why i got into it and researched it. still haven't found one person who could argue why athletics are a responsible cause.
LSU football doesn't make money? Do you have any, you know, data on that? You are sounding like some sour grapes here. As modern university students are so lazy and uneducated, I thought I would help you. Here, report back on these findings: LSU FY 09-10 budget: http://www.lsusystem.edu/userfiles/f...9-2010/LSU.pdf Article on the program and revenues: http://www.ensbsn.com/2010/08/lsu-fo...s-seat-is-hot/ Oh, and this:
Quote:
LSU and Nebraska remain the only two athletic departments from across the nation that reported receiving no subsidies. The LSU athletic department receives no state tax dollars or any revenue from student fees to assist with its 81.5 million dollar budget. snip In addition to being a self-sustaining entity, the LSU athletic department annually gives back money to the university side of the campus for various projects throughout the year.
http://www.lsusports.net/ViewArticle...CLID=204869373 81.5 million budget, covered without any revenue from student fees.
Reply
Reply
post #40 of 228
9/19/10 at 12:17pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by ComboOrgan View Post
That would be true if the increase in applicants was linear, but what I am saying is that I suspect it is not. I am suggesting that the sort of student who would be attracted to a school because of its athletic department is probably not an excellent student. Perhaps there would be a marginal improvement near the bottom of the admitted applicants, but that doesn't impress me much. I think it does little good for my school to increase the quality of marketing and sociology majors it turns out. Sure this looks good in the brochure to be able to publish how "selective" we are, but that's an empty figure. I'm in the graduate engineering school, which is ranked #7 in the country. We compete for top students with MIT, Cornell, Berkeley, and all the big names. How many top applicants do you think we lose because they want to go to a school with an academic reputation like MIT, rather than a football reputation?
It doesn't fucking matter if you think people aren't worthy of yourself just because they like football while you'd rather disassemble Apple IIe's or not have sex. What matters is that sports are the most visible means for public awareness of your school and the benefits they provide the school has an enormous impact on the school's size, educational quality, applicant pool, capital fundraising, etc.
Reply
Reply
post #41 of 228
9/19/10 at 12:17pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post
LSU football doesn't make money? Do you have any, you know, data on that? You are sounding like some sour grapes here.

As modern university students are so lazy and uneducated, I thought I would help you. Here, report back on these findings:

LSU FY 09-10 budget: http://www.lsusystem.edu/userfiles/f...9-2010/LSU.pdf

Article on the program and revenues: http://www.ensbsn.com/2010/08/lsu-fo...s-seat-is-hot/

I think you're right Piobaire. Here's a website which suggests LSU is one of the few profitable programs:

http://www.secsportsfan.com/top-coll...onference.html
Reply
Reply
post #42 of 228
9/19/10 at 12:23pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by ComboOrgan View Post
I think you're right Piobaire. Here's a website which suggests LSU is one of the few profitable programs: http://www.secsportsfan.com/top-coll...onference.html
Actually, many are profitable. My local program also only makes money for the university. Even the coach's huge salary is paid for by private boosters. If you're getting broadcast and marketing revenues, odds are good your program is a huge net monetary positive, not to mention the various other positive externalities. In fact, many football programs allow the existence of various other athletic activities. I just don't feel like presenting data on the rest and I knew LSU was a huge money maker. Enough to prove his thesis incorrect. Kid is having non-jock sour grapes.
Reply
Reply
post #43 of 228
9/19/10 at 12:43pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post
Actually, many are profitable. My local program also only makes money for the university. Even the coach's huge salary is paid for by private boosters. If you're getting broadcast and marketing revenues, odds are good your program is a huge net monetary positive, not to mention the various other positive externalities. In fact, many football programs allow the existence of various other athletic activities.

I just don't feel like presenting data on the rest and I knew LSU was a huge money maker. Enough to prove his thesis incorrect. Kid is having non-jock sour grapes.
+1. Many athletic programs recieve no state or university funding whatsoever, they generate their own revenue through their revenue-generating sports, marketing, and fundraising. Not one dime comes from the state or the university's general fund. For these programs, they must generate a profit. Moreover, football and basketball pay the bills for the non-revenue generating sports. Think about it, many large universities such as OSU, Michigan, etc. usually have 20-27 sports programs but they are funded by only two of them, football and basketball. Without a viable football program in these schools, there would be no funding for the remaining 20 some sports.
Reply
Reply
post #44 of 228
9/19/10 at 1:13pm
The real drain on college athletics is the women's programs, which are mandated by some bullshit law.
Reply
Reply
post #45 of 228
9/19/10 at 1:19pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by ComboOrgan View Post
That would be true if the increase in applicants was linear, but what I am saying is that I suspect it is not.

I am suggesting that the sort of student who would be attracted to a school because of its athletic department is probably not an excellent student. Perhaps there would be a marginal improvement near the bottom of the admitted applicants, but that doesn't impress me much. I think it does little good for my school to increase the quality of marketing and sociology majors it turns out. Sure this looks good in the brochure to be able to publish how "selective" we are, but that's an empty figure.

I'm in the graduate engineering school, which is ranked #7 in the country. We compete for top students with MIT, Cornell, Berkeley, and all the big names. How many top applicants do you think we lose because they want to go to a school with an academic reputation like MIT, rather than a football reputation?

Quote:
Originally Posted by StephenHero View Post
It doesn't fucking matter if you think people aren't worthy of yourself just because they like football while you'd rather disassemble Apple IIe's or not have sex. What matters is that sports are the most visible means for public awareness of your school and the benefits they provide the school has an enormous impact on the school's size, educational quality, applicant pool, capital fundraising, etc.

Seriously. I'm sure U of Michigan would LOVE to have an enrollment full of people like ComboOrgan.
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Chat
Styleforum › Forums › General › General Chat › Are college athletics good or bad?