(02-26-2017 06:50 PM)panama Wrote:  1) who gets to make that decIsion for UMass? You?

2) it's on the phrasing isn't it? Your argument is that universities should not be subsidizing athletic departmemts right? Well if they are subsidizing where is the money coming from? Whether it's student fees or tuition or check from the general fund or even not charging the AD for scholarships it's a hit on the annual revenue. The only way it is not is if the university has a foundation that is fundraising for the university and athletics and the money is coming from there. The $20M that you keep pointing to for UMass is coming from somewhere. And that somewhere is from the university budget somewhere. The problem is that you're talking in absolutes and have arrived at a decision prior to investigating. Alll ADs should be self supporting. With that edict there would be maybe 50 schools in Division I. The other thing is that generally it's Olympic Sports that provide a drag on your AD budget. Football generally pays for everything else. So UMass could drop football and would still have to subsidize their athletic department.

This isn't about me so stop with the predictable response.

My argument is that schools like UMAss with limited fan support and finances really don't see much if any benefit to playing up in FBS so unless there is some benefit it really makes no sense to put that burden on a school and alumni base who doesn't support the sport.

I don't think all AD's need to be self supporting but 80% subsidy is probably not a great spot for a stage flagship playing FBS football as an INDY. Where do you draw the line 90%, 95%?