Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Athletic Subsidies
Author Message
McKinney Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 427
Joined: Dec 2017
Reputation: 27
I Root For: Massachusetts
Location:
Post: #61
RE: Athletic Subsidies
(04-10-2018 10:27 AM)Wedge Wrote:  
(04-09-2018 09:47 PM)McKinney Wrote:  What about the subsidies needed for the service academies?

The academies have gone to great lengths to keep that information private, even getting Congress to pass legislation allowing them to do so. There was a good article about that in USA Today: https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/20...820114001/

Essentially, the academies got laws passed that allow them to reveal only as much information about athletic department finances as they want to reveal, much less than private universities with NCAA athletics have to reveal.

Good find. Sounds a bit suspicious to me. 05-nono
04-10-2018 10:34 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 27,845
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 633
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #62
RE: Athletic Subsidies
(04-09-2018 06:39 PM)debragga Wrote:  
(04-09-2018 12:41 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(04-09-2018 11:29 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(04-09-2018 08:38 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(04-08-2018 04:57 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  What do you mean. huh? High school students dont pay a fee period. They do pay taxes that support both the academic and athletic parts of the school district. Furthermore, those that attend private schools pay for the athletic programs as part of their tuition (as well as taxes to support a public school district they dont attend at all---talk about unfair). Bottom line---The cost of maintaining and running a modern primary public school district includes a cost for athletics. That money is not going to academics---which I assume is your argument at the university level. As far as college goes---If mandatory, the athletic fees are simply part of the cost of attendance---no different than building use fees.

My point is---we accept athletic spending that is not self supporting at the local school district level. Not sure why there should be an expectation that programs that are not self sustaining at the HS level will be at the college level.

-------------------

The reality is----if this issue is a priority with the student---the decision to attend a school with low or no athletic fee is completely and totally within their control.

First, there's a huge quantitative difference between HS students, whose "fees" for athletics takes the form of the taxes their parents pay, and the taxes everyone else in the school district pays even if they have no kids in school, and the specific tacked-on fees that we are talking about for G5 and FCS schools. The former are tiny and diffuse, probably pennies per student per year, the latter, significant.

E.g., in my district here in Baton Rouge, I pay about $150 a year in property taxes that go to fund public schools. That's for funding the entirety of the public school system, all aspects of it. The fraction of this that goes to buy uniforms for football players is probably a dollar or two at most. Contrast that with the hundreds of dollars a semester students at some colleges pay.

Second, there's a major qualitative difference as well. At colleges, regular students are soaked to actually fund the attendance of the athletes. E.g., at UConn, a student pays for their own tuition and books, and then is socked with a fee to help pay for an athlete's tuition and books. So regular students are incurring extra costs and debt to pay for free rides for other students. That doesn't happen in middle school.

Third, the "choice" argument is disingenuous, because it forces a student to make choices they shouldn't have to. A Houston or USF student who thinks their business or engineering program is the best fit for them shouldn't have to choose between that and paying an athletic fee, because athletics isn't a proper part of the mission of a university. It's a false-choice situation. Bad.

As for the comments about "self-sustaining": This is a damning indictment. At public grade and high schools, athletics is touted as fun, recreation activity for students, part of the Platonic ideal of developing mind and body. At colleges, intercollegiate athletics is supposed to BRING IN money. It's touted as an investment that pays off in marketing and other benefits for the university. Truth is, of course, at 90% of all FCS and FBS schools, it obviously costs way more than it brings in, which is why fees are needed. The claims about "front porch" and the like don't pan out, if they did, no fees would be needed.

I am happy to find out that USF's athletic fee is relatively low compared to some other G5 schools, but until it is down to zero, it's a bad thing.

Gotta say---I'd be absolutely shocked if your able to run a local school district on $150 per household. I know my school property taxes are right around $2K and that doesnt include the big chunk of funding that the district gets from the state (about 40% of the budget comes from state sales taxes if I remember correctly). I suspect the tax bite to run your school district is bigger than you think--as is the pro-rata cost of athletics and non-academic functions at the municipal school district level. In terms of size, collegiate athletic budgets are about 2-3% of total spending and about half of those budgets are self funding---so really, only about 1-1.5% is actually being "spent" by the typical G5 university If I remember correctly, my area's school district spends about 2% on athletics---so very similar numbers.

FWIW, my state income tax and local property taxes are about $1,500 total. There is sales tax as well, so maybe I spend about $10 a day on that, that's maybe $1,900 in overall state and local taxes combined per year, and that's to fund everything that state and local government spends on. So no way am I paying anywhere near $2k for public school alone.

Your area spends 2% on athletics? That seems strange. E.g., I just looked up New York City. Their public school budget is approximately $24 Billion per year, spending on athletics is about $27 million per year, or about 1/8 of one percent of spending.

Now athletics can cost more than that, so how is it paid for? Often, USER FEES.

In many places, if a kid wants to play high school football, it might cost $400 in registration and insurance and equipment fees to do so. BUT, who pays that? The KID does, the athlete does. He or his parents have to come up with that money, other kids and their parents - nor the general taxpayer - do not.

So while yes, high school athletics can be costly, those costs are overwhelmingly borne not by the school district, but by the athlete himself. Other students aren't socked a fee to pay those costs for the athlete, they have to pay it themselves. You don't play, you don't pay.

Contrast that with Houston, USF, or UConn, where *other students* are drained of fees to pay for the athlete's uniform, insurance, AND, not just their athletic costs, but their regular student costs like books and tuition!

Huge difference there.

That depends on where you are, in my experience (Texas) athletes/parents pay no fees. Also many school districts pass bonds for new facilities, which are paid off by, you guessed it, the taxpayers.

Yes, that's why i said "in many places ...".

But even in places like yours, where the costs of athletics - including huge $50m football stadiums - are socialized, they are spread over the entire taxpayer base.

Very different from many G5 or FCS schools, where that school's regular students are socked with a big fee, meaning they not only pay for their own tuition and books, they are also being forced to pay for athlete's tuition, books, etc.
04-10-2018 10:54 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 27,845
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 633
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #63
RE: Athletic Subsidies
(04-10-2018 09:09 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  
(04-10-2018 05:01 AM)Go College Sports Wrote:  
(04-09-2018 08:47 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  
(04-09-2018 07:09 AM)Go College Sports Wrote:  Institutions which aren't self sufficient should scale back spending or drop to a more reasonable division instead of spending millions of dollars of student money to lose in the first round of the NCAA tournament or play in the Frisco Bowl in a good year.

So Kanasas State long ago should have scaled back their athletic spending or joined a more financially compatible conference or division?

Uh...yes?

Institutions of higher learning ought not to try to chase their false dreams on the back of the student.

Except they got to the point of self-sufficiency after 122 years.

What do you think Kansas State's student athletic fee was in 1966?
04-10-2018 11:01 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 27,845
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 633
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #64
RE: Athletic Subsidies
(04-10-2018 10:27 AM)Wedge Wrote:  
(04-09-2018 09:47 PM)McKinney Wrote:  What about the subsidies needed for the service academies?

The academies have gone to great lengths to keep that information private, even getting Congress to pass legislation allowing them to do so. There was a good article about that in USA Today: https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/20...820114001/

Essentially, the academies got laws passed that allow them to reveal only as much information about athletic department finances as they want to reveal, much less than private universities with NCAA athletics have to reveal.

IMO, the service academies are special, and don't need to justify their activities in the same way that state universities do. If Congress and the military command think that spending federal tax money on athletics is a good thing for cadet morale, that's fine with me. They are the ones who are going to have their arses on the line. In the context of the $3 Trillion federal budget, it's nothing.

Now, a student at ECU or USF having to pay $200 a year to fund another student's (athlete's) books and tuition, on top of their own? That's significant and unconscionable.
(This post was last modified: 04-10-2018 11:06 AM by quo vadis.)
04-10-2018 11:04 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
TerryD Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 11,487
Joined: Feb 2006
Reputation: 515
I Root For: Notre Dame
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #65
RE: Athletic Subsidies
I don't think that universities should have athletic programs which exist on the backs of their students, but that is just me.

If they disclose those fees to incoming and current students and their parents, then those who attend can't ***** too much, even if someone like me finds the idea repugnant.
04-10-2018 11:31 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
arkstfan Away
Sorry folks
*

Posts: 22,550
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 654
I Root For: Fresh Starts
Location:
Post: #66
RE: Athletic Subsidies
(04-10-2018 11:31 AM)TerryD Wrote:  I don't think that universities should have athletic programs which exist on the backs of their students, but that is just me.

If they disclose those fees to incoming and current students and their parents, then those who attend can't ***** too much, even if someone like me finds the idea repugnant.

All athletic departments existed on the back of the students until the last couple decades.

What you are saying is intercollegiate athletics should not exist because they never should have been created since schools diverted resources provided by students to create those departments.

Makes no sense at all to argue that on a college board as a fan of a college team.
04-10-2018 12:00 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
McKinney Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 427
Joined: Dec 2017
Reputation: 27
I Root For: Massachusetts
Location:
Post: #67
RE: Athletic Subsidies
(04-10-2018 11:04 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  IMO, the service academies are special, and don't need to justify their activities in the same way that state universities do. If Congress and the military command think that spending federal tax money on athletics is a good thing for cadet morale, that's fine with me. They are the ones who are going to have their arses on the line. In the context of the $3 Trillion federal budget, it's nothing.

That's kind of bull**** IMO. That kind of logic is how we got into $21+ Trillion of debt. You want to talk about financial burden on the children, let's start with that. Everything the federal government does should be 100% and absolutely justified down to the cent. I'd be looser on the states since we have 50 of them, if you don't like how your current state is being operated you can go elsewhere.
(This post was last modified: 04-10-2018 12:06 PM by McKinney.)
04-10-2018 12:06 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 27,845
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 633
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #68
RE: Athletic Subsidies
(04-10-2018 12:00 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  
(04-10-2018 11:31 AM)TerryD Wrote:  I don't think that universities should have athletic programs which exist on the backs of their students, but that is just me.

If they disclose those fees to incoming and current students and their parents, then those who attend can't ***** too much, even if someone like me finds the idea repugnant.

All athletic departments existed on the back of the students until the last couple decades.

You keep saying this, but where's the evidence for it?

What kind of athletic fees did Notre Dame charge its students in 1980?

I'm curious. 07-coffee3
04-10-2018 01:44 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
arkstfan Away
Sorry folks
*

Posts: 22,550
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 654
I Root For: Fresh Starts
Location:
Post: #69
RE: Athletic Subsidies
(04-10-2018 01:44 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(04-10-2018 12:00 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  
(04-10-2018 11:31 AM)TerryD Wrote:  I don't think that universities should have athletic programs which exist on the backs of their students, but that is just me.

If they disclose those fees to incoming and current students and their parents, then those who attend can't ***** too much, even if someone like me finds the idea repugnant.

All athletic departments existed on the back of the students until the last couple decades.

You keep saying this, but where's the evidence for it?

What kind of athletic fees did Notre Dame charge its students in 1980?

I'm curious. 07-coffee3

Get you a pay subscription to the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette to hit their archives and read the articles about Hogs being one of five I-A to be in the black which proved a lie when the state started to crack down on funding in 1989.
04-10-2018 02:08 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
TerryD Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 11,487
Joined: Feb 2006
Reputation: 515
I Root For: Notre Dame
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #70
RE: Athletic Subsidies
(04-10-2018 01:44 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(04-10-2018 12:00 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  
(04-10-2018 11:31 AM)TerryD Wrote:  I don't think that universities should have athletic programs which exist on the backs of their students, but that is just me.

If they disclose those fees to incoming and current students and their parents, then those who attend can't ***** too much, even if someone like me finds the idea repugnant.

All athletic departments existed on the back of the students until the last couple decades.

You keep saying this, but where's the evidence for it?

What kind of athletic fees did Notre Dame charge its students in 1980?

I'm curious. 07-coffee3



Or now? Or ever?

I recall when a student ID got LSU students into athletic events, including football games, for free in the 1980's.
(This post was last modified: 04-10-2018 02:21 PM by TerryD.)
04-10-2018 02:20 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 27,845
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 633
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #71
RE: Athletic Subsidies
(04-10-2018 02:20 PM)TerryD Wrote:  
(04-10-2018 01:44 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(04-10-2018 12:00 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  
(04-10-2018 11:31 AM)TerryD Wrote:  I don't think that universities should have athletic programs which exist on the backs of their students, but that is just me.

If they disclose those fees to incoming and current students and their parents, then those who attend can't ***** too much, even if someone like me finds the idea repugnant.

All athletic departments existed on the back of the students until the last couple decades.

You keep saying this, but where's the evidence for it?

What kind of athletic fees did Notre Dame charge its students in 1980?

I'm curious. 07-coffee3



Or now? Or ever?

I recall when a student ID got LSU students into athletic events, including football games, for free in the 1980's.

Yes, and ArkSt should remember that even adjusting for inflation, the athletic dollars were really small back in the day.

For example, in 1995, not exactly ancient history, Baylor's athletic expenditures was a whopping .... $7.5 million. That's $12 million in today's money. That's the entire athletic budget, not just football.

So schools like ARK-State are squandering far more money these days than Power schools did in the past, even if the Power schools were losing money then, which hasn't been proven.
04-10-2018 04:02 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
slhNavy91 Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,956
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation: 185
I Root For: Navy
Location:
Post: #72
RE: Athletic Subsidies
The Naval Academy Athletic Association is a 501©3 which funds the athletic department, including paying most coaches' salaries, owning and operating Navy Marine Corps Memorial Stadium etc.

"About 3 to 4 percent of its $41 million budget comes from federal funding" according to AD Gladchuk in this article: http://www.capitalgazette.com/news/ph-ac...story.html because some of the travel, personnel (like PE professors, including some active duty instructors) just CAN'T be separated out.

The NAAA supports 33 varsity intercollegiate teams, which comprise over 1,000 of the 4,400 midshipmen. This is an integral part of the Academy's mission which begins "To develop midshipmen morally, mentally, and physically..." NAAA also directly supports several of the more important club sports. All mids are required to do at least intramurals; those mids who are only intramural warriors (like I was) benefit from facilities, equipment, etc just like the 25% who directly gain from NAAA-funded sports.

The combination of being a 501©3 but directly related to the DoN created a loophole for not releasing info. Sorry not sorry. USAToday got butthurt that they have gaps in their finances database that they can't fill. Their next yellow journalism piece might as well be "SLHNavy91 refuses to give USAToday his tax returns (even though he is perfectly legally justified not to, we are angry)

The University of Cincinnati News Record article citing "what athletics cost each Navy student" is at BEST imprecise in its wording/framing of the 3-4%

Army West Point and Air Force have created similar structures to NAAA but are behind us in timeline (remember the government shutdown in 2013? Navy was fine because there were $0 federal tax dollars in play, Air Force was at risk of not being able to play us)
04-10-2018 04:16 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
McKinney Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 427
Joined: Dec 2017
Reputation: 27
I Root For: Massachusetts
Location:
Post: #73
RE: Athletic Subsidies
(04-10-2018 04:02 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Yes, and ArkSt should remember that even adjusting for inflation, the athletic dollars were really small back in the day.

For example, in 1995, not exactly ancient history, Baylor's athletic expenditures was a whopping .... $7.5 million. That's $12 million in today's money. That's the entire athletic budget, not just football.

So schools like ARK-State are squandering far more money these days than Power schools did in the past, even if the Power schools were losing money then, which hasn't been proven.

Very true Quo. This cannot be understated. For example, Alabama's legendary Coach Bear Bryant was paid a total compensation of $450,000 in his final year (1982) or ~$1.2M in 2018 dollars. Today Nick Saban is paid just north of ~$11M, or 10 times what their 6 time national championship winning coach made when adjusted for inflation.

Say what you will about how wrong it is for schools to subsidize, I think what's more frightening is the amount of money that the Power schools bring in for athletics and yet they still charge what they do for students to attend.
(This post was last modified: 04-10-2018 04:22 PM by McKinney.)
04-10-2018 04:18 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 27,845
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 633
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #74
RE: Athletic Subsidies
(04-10-2018 04:16 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  The Naval Academy Athletic Association is a 501©3 which funds the athletic department, including paying most coaches' salaries, owning and operating Navy Marine Corps Memorial Stadium etc.

"About 3 to 4 percent of its $41 million budget comes from federal funding" according to AD Gladchuk in this article: http://www.capitalgazette.com/news/ph-ac...story.html because some of the travel, personnel (like PE professors, including some active duty instructors) just CAN'T be separated out.

The NAAA supports 33 varsity intercollegiate teams, which comprise over 1,000 of the 4,400 midshipmen. This is an integral part of the Academy's mission which begins "To develop midshipmen morally, mentally, and physically..."

Yes, for the life of me, I can't figure out how the military academies became a target of concern in this thread. They are not part of any problem. 07-coffee3
04-10-2018 04:36 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 27,845
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 633
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #75
RE: Athletic Subsidies
(04-10-2018 04:18 PM)McKinney Wrote:  
(04-10-2018 04:02 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Yes, and ArkSt should remember that even adjusting for inflation, the athletic dollars were really small back in the day.

For example, in 1995, not exactly ancient history, Baylor's athletic expenditures was a whopping .... $7.5 million. That's $12 million in today's money. That's the entire athletic budget, not just football.

So schools like ARK-State are squandering far more money these days than Power schools did in the past, even if the Power schools were losing money then, which hasn't been proven.

Very true Quo. This cannot be understated. For example, Alabama's legendary Coach Bear Bryant was paid a total compensation of $450,000 in his final year (1982) or ~$1.2M in 2018 dollars. Today Nick Saban is paid just north of ~$11M, or 10 times what their 6 time national championship winning coach made when adjusted for inflation.

Say what you will about how wrong it is for schools to subsidize, I think what's more frightening is the amount of money that the Power schools bring in for athletics and yet they still charge what they do for students to attend.

I see your point, but FWIW, it doesn't bother me if a school like Alabama or USC charges its students $50 (or whatever) for a football game ticket. That's money the student does truly voluntarily pay - unlike a mandatory athletic fee, his attendance at the university itself isn't being held hostage to it.

As a student myself once, I never really thought I had a special right to attend games above and beyond the man on the street. I felt it reasonable that i get in line to buy tickets with everyone else (not that this was needed much at USF, sadly), and if the university did carve out some kind of student section with lower ticket prices, then i was grateful for that as a bonus, not something i felt they had to do.
(This post was last modified: 04-10-2018 04:41 PM by quo vadis.)
04-10-2018 04:40 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
McKinney Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 427
Joined: Dec 2017
Reputation: 27
I Root For: Massachusetts
Location:
Post: #76
RE: Athletic Subsidies
(04-10-2018 04:40 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(04-10-2018 04:18 PM)McKinney Wrote:  
(04-10-2018 04:02 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Yes, and ArkSt should remember that even adjusting for inflation, the athletic dollars were really small back in the day.

For example, in 1995, not exactly ancient history, Baylor's athletic expenditures was a whopping .... $7.5 million. That's $12 million in today's money. That's the entire athletic budget, not just football.

So schools like ARK-State are squandering far more money these days than Power schools did in the past, even if the Power schools were losing money then, which hasn't been proven.

Very true Quo. This cannot be understated. For example, Alabama's legendary Coach Bear Bryant was paid a total compensation of $450,000 in his final year (1982) or ~$1.2M in 2018 dollars. Today Nick Saban is paid just north of ~$11M, or 10 times what their 6 time national championship winning coach made when adjusted for inflation.

Say what you will about how wrong it is for schools to subsidize, I think what's more frightening is the amount of money that the Power schools bring in for athletics and yet they still charge what they do for students to attend.

I see your point, but FWIW, it doesn't bother me if a school like Alabama or USC charges its students $50 for a football game ticket. That's money the student does truly voluntarily pay, unlike a mandatory athletic fee, his attendance at the university itself isn't being held hostage to it.

As a student myself once, I never really thought I had a special right to attend games above and beyond the man on the street. I felt it reasonable that i get in line to buy tickets with everyone else (not that this was needed much at USF, sadly), and if the university did carve out some kind of student section with lower ticket prices, then i was grateful for that as a bonus, not something i felt they had to do.

I meant to attend the school, but I suppose attending the games does apply too and is probably even more applicable.
(This post was last modified: 04-10-2018 04:49 PM by McKinney.)
04-10-2018 04:42 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 27,845
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 633
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #77
RE: Athletic Subsidies
(04-10-2018 04:42 PM)McKinney Wrote:  
(04-10-2018 04:40 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(04-10-2018 04:18 PM)McKinney Wrote:  
(04-10-2018 04:02 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Yes, and ArkSt should remember that even adjusting for inflation, the athletic dollars were really small back in the day.

For example, in 1995, not exactly ancient history, Baylor's athletic expenditures was a whopping .... $7.5 million. That's $12 million in today's money. That's the entire athletic budget, not just football.

So schools like ARK-State are squandering far more money these days than Power schools did in the past, even if the Power schools were losing money then, which hasn't been proven.

Very true Quo. This cannot be understated. For example, Alabama's legendary Coach Bear Bryant was paid a total compensation of $450,000 in his final year (1982) or ~$1.2M in 2018 dollars. Today Nick Saban is paid just north of ~$11M, or 10 times what their 6 time national championship winning coach made when adjusted for inflation.

Say what you will about how wrong it is for schools to subsidize, I think what's more frightening is the amount of money that the Power schools bring in for athletics and yet they still charge what they do for students to attend.

I see your point, but FWIW, it doesn't bother me if a school like Alabama or USC charges its students $50 for a football game ticket. That's money the student does truly voluntarily pay, unlike a mandatory athletic fee, his attendance at the university itself isn't being held hostage to it.

As a student myself once, I never really thought I had a special right to attend games above and beyond the man on the street. I felt it reasonable that i get in line to buy tickets with everyone else (not that this was needed much at USF, sadly), and if the university did carve out some kind of student section with lower ticket prices, then i was grateful for that as a bonus, not something i felt they had to do.

I meant to attend the school, not the games. Although that does apply too.

DOH! 03-lmfao
04-10-2018 04:43 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ken d Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 9,221
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 386
I Root For: college sports
Location: Raleigh
Post: #78
RE: Athletic Subsidies
(04-10-2018 02:08 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  
(04-10-2018 01:44 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(04-10-2018 12:00 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  
(04-10-2018 11:31 AM)TerryD Wrote:  I don't think that universities should have athletic programs which exist on the backs of their students, but that is just me.

If they disclose those fees to incoming and current students and their parents, then those who attend can't ***** too much, even if someone like me finds the idea repugnant.

All athletic departments existed on the back of the students until the last couple decades.

You keep saying this, but where's the evidence for it?

What kind of athletic fees did Notre Dame charge its students in 1980?

I'm curious. 07-coffee3

Get you a pay subscription to the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette to hit their archives and read the articles about Hogs being one of five I-A to be in the black which proved a lie when the state started to crack down on funding in 1989.

What was the lie - that the Hogs were in the black, or that they were one of only 5?
04-10-2018 05:00 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
otown Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,953
Joined: May 2013
Reputation: 50
I Root For: Florida
Location:
Post: #79
RE: Athletic Subsidies
(04-10-2018 04:18 PM)McKinney Wrote:  
(04-10-2018 04:02 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Yes, and ArkSt should remember that even adjusting for inflation, the athletic dollars were really small back in the day.

For example, in 1995, not exactly ancient history, Baylor's athletic expenditures was a whopping .... $7.5 million. That's $12 million in today's money. That's the entire athletic budget, not just football.

So schools like ARK-State are squandering far more money these days than Power schools did in the past, even if the Power schools were losing money then, which hasn't been proven.


Say what you will about how wrong it is for schools to subsidize, I think what's more frightening is the amount of money that the Power schools bring in for athletics and yet they still charge what they do for students to attend.

Athletic events are one thing......... but the whole academic university structure is just as bad.

This is strictly because out of control student loan lending, both govt subsidized and private. Students can essentially take massive amounts of loans including "living expense loans." Unfortunately, a lot of these students are way too immature to manage their money. I've seen countless examples of people burning through their living expense money like its a never ending piggy bank.

Unfortunately, universities, both private/public are taking advantage of these immature students, reckless publicly backed lending, and private loans. They are getting away with it and continue to raise their tuition year in and out with no push back.
(This post was last modified: 04-10-2018 07:38 PM by otown.)
04-10-2018 07:35 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 27,845
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 633
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #80
RE: Athletic Subsidies
(04-10-2018 07:35 PM)otown Wrote:  
(04-10-2018 04:18 PM)McKinney Wrote:  
(04-10-2018 04:02 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Yes, and ArkSt should remember that even adjusting for inflation, the athletic dollars were really small back in the day.

For example, in 1995, not exactly ancient history, Baylor's athletic expenditures was a whopping .... $7.5 million. That's $12 million in today's money. That's the entire athletic budget, not just football.

So schools like ARK-State are squandering far more money these days than Power schools did in the past, even if the Power schools were losing money then, which hasn't been proven.


Say what you will about how wrong it is for schools to subsidize, I think what's more frightening is the amount of money that the Power schools bring in for athletics and yet they still charge what they do for students to attend.

Athletic events are one thing......... but the whole academic university structure is just as bad.

This is strictly because out of control student loan lending, both govt subsidized and private. Students can essentially take massive amounts of loans including "living expense loans." Unfortunately, a lot of these students are way too immature to manage their money. I've seen countless examples of people burning through their living expense money like its a never ending piggy bank.

Unfortunately, universities, both private/public are taking advantage of these immature students, reckless publicly backed lending, and private loans. They are getting away with it and continue to raise their tuition year in and out with no push back.

Yes, e.g., the Obama administration cracked down very hard on "for profit" schools, but the truth is, public universities play a lot of the same game. Their profligate spending means huge loan debt for many students.
(This post was last modified: 04-10-2018 07:54 PM by quo vadis.)
04-10-2018 07:54 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2018 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2018 MyBB Group.