Sellular1
1st String
Posts: 2,244
Joined: May 2016
Reputation: 186
I Root For: USF
Location: The ATL
|
RE: State of Ohio Looking into Banning or Limiting Athletic Subsidies
(07-02-2017 10:54 PM)Attackcoog Wrote: (07-02-2017 09:47 PM)Stugray2 Wrote: Houston athletics is one of the worst tit suckers in the American taking massive sums of tax payer money. Roughly $134M the last decade. The State of Texas higher education should look into that. Houston only drew $2,381,665 in 2006-07 and $2,308,000 in 2007-08. Obviously there was a policy change to go into deep debt after that season, and the debt has been piling up ever since. ("Investment" is the term they will use)
2016-17 $19,000,000 (est)
2015-16 $18,733,954
2014-15 $14,006,414
2013-14 $18,331,757
2012-13 $16,936,151
2011-12 $15,779,750
2010-11 $12,691,796
2009-10 $15,334,786
2008-09 $13,148,040
And yet, enrollment is way up and so is every academic measure. Is it possible that the better students want to experience life on a campus with a competitive athletic department? Again, its still completely within a students control as to how his tuition is spent. If he wants to attend a school where not one cent of his tuition goes to athletics---he can. Not really sure why your being so salty. Lets be honest here---athletics is essentially the marketing department of the university. UH for example has a 1.5 billion dollar budget. The 45 million dollar athletics budget (which is really effectively the schools primary marketing arm) is essentially being subsidized by alumni donations and ticket buyers (26 million in free money from folks that have already left the university). So, who is being subsidized is all in how you look at it. Its really a pretty ingenious way of getting much of your marketing paid for by others---while providing a popular amenity for existing students. The increasing enrollment and grad rates would tend to indicate this form of marketing is working well for UH (at least thus far it is).
(07-03-2017 07:35 AM)quo vadis Wrote: (07-02-2017 10:54 PM)Attackcoog Wrote: (07-02-2017 09:47 PM)Stugray2 Wrote: Houston athletics is one of the worst tit suckers in the American taking massive sums of tax payer money. Roughly $134M the last decade. The State of Texas higher education should look into that. Houston only drew $2,381,665 in 2006-07 and $2,308,000 in 2007-08. Obviously there was a policy change to go into deep debt after that season, and the debt has been piling up ever since. ("Investment" is the term they will use)
2016-17 $19,000,000 (est)
2015-16 $18,733,954
2014-15 $14,006,414
2013-14 $18,331,757
2012-13 $16,936,151
2011-12 $15,779,750
2010-11 $12,691,796
2009-10 $15,334,786
2008-09 $13,148,040
And yet, enrollment is way up and so is every academic measure. Is it possible that the better students want to experience life on a campus with a competitive athletic department? Again, its still completely within a students control as to how his tuition is spent. If he wants to attend a school where not one cent of his tuition goes to athletics---he can.
First, re enrollment, it could be sheer coincidence. E.g., I saw a report that said Houston's Graduate School of Social Work is one of the fastest growing in the country right now. It would surprise me if many social work grad students made their attendance decision based on Houston's willingness to transfer millions in tuition to athletics each year.
Second, that choice argument seems similar to arguments that redneck companies that wanted to discriminate made 50 years ago, such as "well, we don't serve african-americans but so what, they can always choose to go to a business that does, because there are that do". Wasn't persuasive to the courts. Point is, a university exists for academics. If I'm a student and Houston has a program I think fits best for me but I also dislike my tuition going to Chase The Dream Of Big Time Athletics, I shouldn't have to possibly sacrifice that academic fit to attend a less-fitting university that isn't chasing that dream with my tuition dollars. That's a choice no student should have to make.
Student fees are bad, but at least there is a modicum (not much, but a modicum) of choice involved because usually they are the result of a student vote. Institutional transfers are even worse though because they are made by ambitious administrators without student input.
Racism... Really???
|
|