(07-07-2018 12:51 PM)loki_the_bubba Wrote:  

(07-06-2018 09:33 PM)TU4ever Wrote:  

(07-06-2018 02:12 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-06-2018 01:40 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-06-2018 12:50 PM)Wedge Wrote:  I don't agree with this because it's a restricted market, not a free market. A student who wants to live at home to keep expenses under control while attending Houston or New Mexico or Nevada might not have any viable alternatives within reasonable commuting distance. Where are they going to go to college instead if they object to a fee to subsidize D-I athletics? There's no way that they will see paying an additional $10,000 or more per year in living expenses (which will likely require a student loan) at a comparable farther-away school as a viable alternative to paying a $300 or $500 a year athletics tax.

Yes, Coog seems to think the typical student has an unlimited travel and relocation budget and can just opt to go to any of hundreds of colleges. That's not reality.

The market argument fails for that reason (many schools have close to a captive audience) and because the fee, though tough to swallow, is bundled with tuition, housing, etc that are much larger.

The market would work if students had a real choice - the fee being optional rather than being held hostage to enrollment.

Actually---it is. Its up to you what your level of sacrifice is to acheive your goal. The only limits are those you set for yourself. You can move. You can do community college and/or on-line universities. If you demand a "better" education---there are student loans to bridge the gap in costs. There is a universe of educational option these days. There are only 360 D1 schools (and even some of those have no athletic fees). So yes---guilty as charged----I do believe there are plenty of choices and options out there---even for the poorest and most limited among us. Count me among them as one who largely paid his own way through school.

I don't know about Houston, but here in the immeadiate Tulsa area we have several non-div 1 schools and a hand full who have no athletics what so ever. We also have two private university, ok state, and OU as options who play division 1 sports. Can anyone name our non-division 1 schools in the eastern half of oklahoma? I'll wait.

Houston is very under-served in number of universities. We have:

Rice (D1)
Houston (D1)
Houston Baptist (D1)
Texas Southern (D1)
Saint Thomas (NAIA, tiny)
And then community colleges.

If you go a little further afield you only add Sam Houston (D1), Lamar (D1), aTm (D1), and Prairie View (D1). So almost no non-D1 options. The nearest D3 schools are 200 miles away in Austin and San Antonio.

You forgot UH-Downtown----a stand alone 4-year college with no D1 athletic program. UH-Clear Lake and UH-Victoria are two more separate stand alone non-D1 schools like UH-Downtown. Those 3 schools have a total of over 27K students. Also, the Lone Star CC System offers 4-year degrees through partnerships with Lamar University, National American University, Our Lady of The Lake University, Rice, Sam Houston State, Steven F Austin, University of Houston, and University of St Thomas. I dont believe any athletic fees are required for those Lone Star degrees.

(07-06-2018 02:12 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-06-2018 01:40 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-06-2018 12:50 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(07-06-2018 12:23 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-06-2018 11:54 AM)Wedge Wrote:  Your argument is that this tax on students is justified if the school is well known (i.e., much better known than comparable schools that don't have D-I athletics) and if the reason it's well known is because of its athletic programs.

Which means that if the school is not actually well known, the tax isn't justified, and if the school is well known for reasons other than its athletic programs, the tax isn't justified.

There are probably dozens (or more) schools taxing their students for D-I athletics who couldn't justify the tax under this criteria.

No. My argument is the free market will work this out. If athletics or the fees associated with the programs becomes an enrollment negative---the programs will begin to vanish. My second argument is the student has the ultimate power to decide to attend a school with or without athletics. There are plenty of options available to fit all tastes and preferences.

Schools that have athletic programs have repeated stated that athletics is the "front porch" of the school. All students get to share in the expense of the front porch as long as the administration believes that having a front porch is helpful to the school and aids enrollment. Whether its a seperate fee or built into the cost of a semester hour makes no difference.

I don't agree with this because it's a restricted market, not a free market. A student who wants to live at home to keep expenses under control while attending Houston or New Mexico or Nevada might not have any viable alternatives within reasonable commuting distance. Where are they going to go to college instead if they object to a fee to subsidize D-I athletics? There's no way that they will see paying an additional $10,000 or more per year in living expenses (which will likely require a student loan) at a comparable farther-away school as a viable alternative to paying a $300 or $500 a year athletics tax.

Yes, Coog seems to think the typical student has an unlimited travel and relocation budget and can just opt to go to any of hundreds of colleges. That's not reality.

The market argument fails for that reason (many schools have close to a captive audience) and because the fee, though tough to swallow, is bundled with tuition, housing, etc that are much larger.

The market would work if students had a real choice - the fee being optional rather than being held hostage to enrollment.

Actually---it is. Its up to you what your level of sacrifice is to acheive your goal. The only limits are those you set for yourself. You can move. You can do community college and/or on-line universities. If you demand a "better" education---there are student loans to bridge the gap in costs. There is a universe of educational option these days. There are only 360 D1 schools (and even some of those have no athletic fees). So yes---guilty as charged----I do believe there are plenty of choices and options out there---even for the poorest and most limited among us. Count me among them as one who largely paid his own way through school.

Much harder to pay out of pocket today. Back in the 80's you could work full-time minimum wage over the summer and earn enough to cover most if not all of your costs of a public four year, and if you had a part-time job during the school year you were pretty much set.

Today doing the same you would fall well short if you wanted to live on campus and it is much harder to find employers hiring full-time people for just three summer months and part-time employers who will respect your class schedule in making out work schedules.

(07-06-2018 09:33 PM)TU4ever Wrote:  

(07-06-2018 02:12 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-06-2018 01:40 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-06-2018 12:50 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(07-06-2018 12:23 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  No. My argument is the free market will work this out. If athletics or the fees associated with the programs becomes an enrollment negative---the programs will begin to vanish. My second argument is the student has the ultimate power to decide to attend a school with or without athletics. There are plenty of options available to fit all tastes and preferences.

Schools that have athletic programs have repeated stated that athletics is the "front porch" of the school. All students get to share in the expense of the front porch as long as the administration believes that having a front porch is helpful to the school and aids enrollment. Whether its a seperate fee or built into the cost of a semester hour makes no difference.

I don't agree with this because it's a restricted market, not a free market. A student who wants to live at home to keep expenses under control while attending Houston or New Mexico or Nevada might not have any viable alternatives within reasonable commuting distance. Where are they going to go to college instead if they object to a fee to subsidize D-I athletics? There's no way that they will see paying an additional $10,000 or more per year in living expenses (which will likely require a student loan) at a comparable farther-away school as a viable alternative to paying a $300 or $500 a year athletics tax.

Yes, Coog seems to think the typical student has an unlimited travel and relocation budget and can just opt to go to any of hundreds of colleges. That's not reality.

The market argument fails for that reason (many schools have close to a captive audience) and because the fee, though tough to swallow, is bundled with tuition, housing, etc that are much larger.

The market would work if students had a real choice - the fee being optional rather than being held hostage to enrollment.

Actually---it is. Its up to you what your level of sacrifice is to acheive your goal. The only limits are those you set for yourself. You can move. You can do community college and/or on-line universities. If you demand a "better" education---there are student loans to bridge the gap in costs. There is a universe of educational option these days. There are only 360 D1 schools (and even some of those have no athletic fees). So yes---guilty as charged----I do believe there are plenty of choices and options out there---even for the poorest and most limited among us. Count me among them as one who largely paid his own way through school.

I don't know about Houston, but here in the immeadiate Tulsa area we have several non-div 1 schools and a hand full who have no athletics what so ever. We also have two private university, ok state, and OU as options who play division 1 sports. Can anyone name our non-division 1 schools in the eastern half of oklahoma? I'll wait.

East Central, OK Baptist, SE Oklahoma State are all in the Great American, not sure what an Oklahoman would call "eastern" Oklahoma.

(07-08-2018 03:03 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(07-06-2018 02:12 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-06-2018 01:40 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-06-2018 12:50 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(07-06-2018 12:23 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  No. My argument is the free market will work this out. If athletics or the fees associated with the programs becomes an enrollment negative---the programs will begin to vanish. My second argument is the student has the ultimate power to decide to attend a school with or without athletics. There are plenty of options available to fit all tastes and preferences.

Schools that have athletic programs have repeated stated that athletics is the "front porch" of the school. All students get to share in the expense of the front porch as long as the administration believes that having a front porch is helpful to the school and aids enrollment. Whether its a seperate fee or built into the cost of a semester hour makes no difference.

I don't agree with this because it's a restricted market, not a free market. A student who wants to live at home to keep expenses under control while attending Houston or New Mexico or Nevada might not have any viable alternatives within reasonable commuting distance. Where are they going to go to college instead if they object to a fee to subsidize D-I athletics? There's no way that they will see paying an additional $10,000 or more per year in living expenses (which will likely require a student loan) at a comparable farther-away school as a viable alternative to paying a $300 or $500 a year athletics tax.

Yes, Coog seems to think the typical student has an unlimited travel and relocation budget and can just opt to go to any of hundreds of colleges. That's not reality.

The market argument fails for that reason (many schools have close to a captive audience) and because the fee, though tough to swallow, is bundled with tuition, housing, etc that are much larger.

The market would work if students had a real choice - the fee being optional rather than being held hostage to enrollment.

Actually---it is. Its up to you what your level of sacrifice is to acheive your goal. The only limits are those you set for yourself. You can move. You can do community college and/or on-line universities. If you demand a "better" education---there are student loans to bridge the gap in costs. There is a universe of educational option these days. There are only 360 D1 schools (and even some of those have no athletic fees). So yes---guilty as charged----I do believe there are plenty of choices and options out there---even for the poorest and most limited among us. Count me among them as one who largely paid his own way through school.

Much harder to pay out of pocket today. Back in the 80's you could work full-time minimum wage over the summer and earn enough to cover most if not all of your costs of a public four year, and if you had a part-time job during the school year you were pretty much set.

Today doing the same you would fall well short if you wanted to live on campus and it is much harder to find employers hiring full-time people for just three summer months and part-time employers who will respect your class schedule in making out work schedules.

Agree---though I think the availability and size of student loans is much greater than it was when I did it as well (I actually had a couple small student loans to make it work). Thus---the functional affordability is probably not much different than it was back then.

(07-07-2018 09:00 AM)gulfcoastgal Wrote:  

(07-06-2018 10:59 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-06-2018 06:13 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-05-2018 12:52 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-05-2018 12:24 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  That point has already been addressed: By pushing the level of choice to the institutional level - pay it or attend another university - the market is dramatically distorted. That's coercion, because the 'price' of not paying the fee is far higher than of paying the fee. At that point, the school is holding hostage the presumably large academic benefits of attending that school to the payment of the athletic fee.

It's like if I was a dictator and i told you "you can either pay $200 a year towards my son's annual vacation in Tahiti, or you can pay a fine of $1000 if you refuse", in no meaningful way could your decision to pay the $200 "dictator son vacation fee" be called a "choice" on your part.

Your final paragraph is simply ludicrous. There are literally thousands of institutions with no or very small athletic programs. Nobody is forced to attend a school they dont want to attend. In fact—you need not attend a college at all.

No, it's spot on: Many students spend a lot of time identifying colleges that have specific programs that meet their needs and a lot of time applying to them. There are thousands of colleges but not all are accessible, there are travel constraints, money constraints, many students can only realistically attend a college within driving distance of home, and switching from one college choice to another isn't like deciding to go to McDonalds today instead of Burger King. What's ludicrous is your statement that "you don't have to attend college at all", when many believe their life outcomes depend on getting a college education.

The whole reason administrators hold attending their university hostage to paying an athletic fee is because they know that it is indeed difficult and costly to switch if you are already attending, and that new students are likely to swallow the fee if the school's programs meet their needs. They count on being able to free-ride that fee in the basket of legitimate academic costs the students already have to pay. If tuition is $10,000 a year anyway, a $300 fee can be 'hidden' pretty easily.

And they do that because they know that if the student had a real choice, a whole lot wouldn't pay the fee.

Lol. Nobody would pay the fee if they could avoid it. In fact, if students could avoid any fee or any part of the tuition cost the smart student would opt out of paying it. That’s not really much of an argument. Again—there is a top 200 for most any major. There are always alternatives. Furthermore, if a student is heading to a state sponsored school—.then there are lots and lots of options—and they are all reasonably serviceable options as it’s not like the typical state supported school is a prestigious Ivy that provides an education and future few other options can match. If you want to avoid athletic fees it can be done quite easily without great dupisruption in ones education.

The reality is kids want to go to the schools with familiar well known names they have heard mentioned over and over. They want to go to the schools thier friends have heard mentioned over and over. The kids want to go to the schools that they have seen on tv, They may not even realize it, but the reason the name is so familiar is that 90% of the times they have heard the school name—it was probably related to the schools sports program that they would like to not pay for.

There are no free lunches. If you want the big well known school—you have to help pay for part of how it got to be and stays well known.

There was a thread recently discussing higher ed and opportunities in today's economy (which are constantly increasing). Students and their parents are more savvy and cost conscious than ever with more choices than ever before.

I find it hard to believe that University of Memphis is the only school offering online degrees with no associated athletic fees. If students are diametrically opposed to these types of fees, want to live local and get their degree from the UofM, they can. I'm sure similar options like this exist at other schools for those not wanting a traditional campus experience and all it has to offer. If they don't, it won't be long before they do.

Arkansas State does not assess athletic fees to online students.

(07-07-2018 04:51 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-06-2018 10:36 PM)panama Wrote:  

(07-06-2018 01:40 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-06-2018 12:50 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(07-06-2018 12:23 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  No. My argument is the free market will work this out. If athletics or the fees associated with the programs becomes an enrollment negative---the programs will begin to vanish. My second argument is the student has the ultimate power to decide to attend a school with or without athletics. There are plenty of options available to fit all tastes and preferences.

Schools that have athletic programs have repeated stated that athletics is the "front porch" of the school. All students get to share in the expense of the front porch as long as the administration believes that having a front porch is helpful to the school and aids enrollment. Whether its a seperate fee or built into the cost of a semester hour makes no difference.

I don't agree with this because it's a restricted market, not a free market. A student who wants to live at home to keep expenses under control while attending Houston or New Mexico or Nevada might not have any viable alternatives within reasonable commuting distance. Where are they going to go to college instead if they object to a fee to subsidize D-I athletics? There's no way that they will see paying an additional $10,000 or more per year in living expenses (which will likely require a student loan) at a comparable farther-away school as a viable alternative to paying a $300 or $500 a year athletics tax.

Yes, Coog seems to think the typical student has an unlimited travel and relocation budget and can just opt to go to any of hundreds of colleges. That's not reality.

The market argument fails for that reason (many schools have close to a captive audience) and because the fee, though tough to swallow, is bundled with tuition, housing, etc that are much larger.
he ude

So they couldn't opt for a community college vs State U. Sure ...sure...ok...
the
Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

A community college may not have the programs the student wants.

There's a reason admins hold attendance at a university hostage to payment of athletic fees - otherwise most wouldn't pay them. And unlike fees for student newspapers or radio stations, they have zero academic or vocational content.

Fees for intramural sports? Very justified, as physical education is part of the Socratic educational ideal of mind, body, spirit and are open to all students. Intercollegiate athletics are nothing like that.

Athletics do not have zero academic or vocational content.
Sports information departments use student interns and train them in photography, press release writing, and taking stats during games. One of my best friends started his career as a student SID intern, used that experience to get a part-time job with a regional newspaper and then full-time gigs with two large newspapers.
The video department trains videographers in shooting content and editing. Both often do social media things. Know a guy who went from student videographer for football to running the entire video system for a racetrack including the video board and satellite feed for off-track wagering sites.
Most have marketing interns.
Most have students in athletic training getting actual hands on experience.
Mississippi State has a turf management degree program, know a guy who is now a parks director for a small city who graduated from the program and he got hands on experience at Miss State athletic venues, that landed him a job at my local community to set up and maintain the fields for a new athletic site, from that had expanded responsibilities leading to running an entire parks and rec department.
My son's former girlfriend was drum major for A-State and had to give up the role when she switched majors (but could remain in the band) because being a drum major greatly increases a music major's chances of landing a teaching job with a high school.

Athletic departments absolutely have an academic and vocational component.

(07-08-2018 03:33 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(07-07-2018 04:51 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-06-2018 10:36 PM)panama Wrote:  

(07-06-2018 01:40 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-06-2018 12:50 PM)Wedge Wrote:  I don't agree with this because it's a restricted market, not a free market. A student who wants to live at home to keep expenses under control while attending Houston or New Mexico or Nevada might not have any viable alternatives within reasonable commuting distance. Where are they going to go to college instead if they object to a fee to subsidize D-I athletics? There's no way that they will see paying an additional $10,000 or more per year in living expenses (which will likely require a student loan) at a comparable farther-away school as a viable alternative to paying a $300 or $500 a year athletics tax.

Yes, Coog seems to think the typical student has an unlimited travel and relocation budget and can just opt to go to any of hundreds of colleges. That's not reality.

The market argument fails for that reason (many schools have close to a captive audience) and because the fee, though tough to swallow, is bundled with tuition, housing, etc that are much larger.
he ude

So they couldn't opt for a community college vs State U. Sure ...sure...ok...
the
Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

A community college may not have the programs the student wants.

There's a reason admins hold attendance at a university hostage to payment of athletic fees - otherwise most wouldn't pay them. And unlike fees for student newspapers or radio stations, they have zero academic or vocational content.

Fees for intramural sports? Very justified, as physical education is part of the Socratic educational ideal of mind, body, spirit and are open to all students. Intercollegiate athletics are nothing like that.

Athletics do not have zero academic or vocational content.
Sports information departments use student interns and train them in photography, press release writing, and taking stats during games. One of my best friends started his career as a student SID intern, used that experience to get a part-time job with a regional newspaper and then full-time gigs with two large newspapers.
The video department trains videographers in shooting content and editing. Both often do social media things. Know a guy who went from student videographer for football to running the entire video system for a racetrack including the video board and satellite feed for off-track wagering sites.
Most have marketing interns.
Most have students in athletic training getting actual hands on experience.
Mississippi State has a turf management degree program, know a guy who is now a parks director for a small city who graduated from the program and he got hands on experience at Miss State athletic venues, that landed him a job at my local community to set up and maintain the fields for a new athletic site, from that had expanded responsibilities leading to running an entire parks and rec department.
My son's former girlfriend was drum major for A-State and had to give up the role when she switched majors (but could remain in the band) because being a drum major greatly increases a music major's chances of landing a teaching job with a high school.

Athletic departments absolutely have an academic and vocational component.

Oh come on. Tens of millions squandered chasing a P5 dream annually and that is supposed to be justified because a handful of kids get to help the groundskeeper plant the turf and a few others help film practices and man the video screens? Plus, any school could still offer those kinds of opportunities without a millions-in-debt football team.

You cannot be serious.

(07-12-2018 11:27 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-08-2018 03:33 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(07-07-2018 04:51 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-06-2018 10:36 PM)panama Wrote:  

(07-06-2018 01:40 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Yes, Coog seems to think the typical student has an unlimited travel and relocation budget and can just opt to go to any of hundreds of colleges. That's not reality.

The market argument fails for that reason (many schools have close to a captive audience) and because the fee, though tough to swallow, is bundled with tuition, housing, etc that are much larger.
he ude

So they couldn't opt for a community college vs State U. Sure ...sure...ok...
the
Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

A community college may not have the programs the student wants.

There's a reason admins hold attendance at a university hostage to payment of athletic fees - otherwise most wouldn't pay them. And unlike fees for student newspapers or radio stations, they have zero academic or vocational content.

Fees for intramural sports? Very justified, as physical education is part of the Socratic educational ideal of mind, body, spirit and are open to all students. Intercollegiate athletics are nothing like that.

Athletics do not have zero academic or vocational content.
Sports information departments use student interns and train them in photography, press release writing, and taking stats during games. One of my best friends started his career as a student SID intern, used that experience to get a part-time job with a regional newspaper and then full-time gigs with two large newspapers.
The video department trains videographers in shooting content and editing. Both often do social media things. Know a guy who went from student videographer for football to running the entire video system for a racetrack including the video board and satellite feed for off-track wagering sites.
Most have marketing interns.
Most have students in athletic training getting actual hands on experience.
Mississippi State has a turf management degree program, know a guy who is now a parks director for a small city who graduated from the program and he got hands on experience at Miss State athletic venues, that landed him a job at my local community to set up and maintain the fields for a new athletic site, from that had expanded responsibilities leading to running an entire parks and rec department.
My son's former girlfriend was drum major for A-State and had to give up the role when she switched majors (but could remain in the band) because being a drum major greatly increases a music major's chances of landing a teaching job with a high school.

Athletic departments absolutely have an academic and vocational component.

Oh come on. Tens of millions squandered chasing a P5 dream annually and that is supposed to be justified because a handful of kids get to help the groundskeeper plant the turf and a few others help film practices and man the video screens? Plus, any school could still offer those kinds of opportunities without a millions-in-debt football team.

You cannot be serious.

Most of the that squandered money is for other sports most likely. Football and basketball are the only sports really that have any way of bringing any kind of revenue stream into college athletics. So really you're arguing that if you don't have a football program capable of supporting all of your other sports then you should just drop athletics altogether? ODU used about 28.7 million in student fees last year. Football's deficit was about 2.8 million.

(07-12-2018 12:21 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(07-12-2018 11:27 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-08-2018 03:33 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(07-07-2018 04:51 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-06-2018 10:36 PM)panama Wrote:  So they couldn't opt for a community college vs State U. Sure ...sure...ok...
the
Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

A community college may not have the programs the student wants.

There's a reason admins hold attendance at a university hostage to payment of athletic fees - otherwise most wouldn't pay them. And unlike fees for student newspapers or radio stations, they have zero academic or vocational content.

Fees for intramural sports? Very justified, as physical education is part of the Socratic educational ideal of mind, body, spirit and are open to all students. Intercollegiate athletics are nothing like that.

Athletics do not have zero academic or vocational content.
Sports information departments use student interns and train them in photography, press release writing, and taking stats during games. One of my best friends started his career as a student SID intern, used that experience to get a part-time job with a regional newspaper and then full-time gigs with two large newspapers.
The video department trains videographers in shooting content and editing. Both often do social media things. Know a guy who went from student videographer for football to running the entire video system for a racetrack including the video board and satellite feed for off-track wagering sites.
Most have marketing interns.
Most have students in athletic training getting actual hands on experience.
Mississippi State has a turf management degree program, know a guy who is now a parks director for a small city who graduated from the program and he got hands on experience at Miss State athletic venues, that landed him a job at my local community to set up and maintain the fields for a new athletic site, from that had expanded responsibilities leading to running an entire parks and rec department.
My son's former girlfriend was drum major for A-State and had to give up the role when she switched majors (but could remain in the band) because being a drum major greatly increases a music major's chances of landing a teaching job with a high school.

Athletic departments absolutely have an academic and vocational component.

Oh come on. Tens of millions squandered chasing a P5 dream annually and that is supposed to be justified because a handful of kids get to help the groundskeeper plant the turf and a few others help film practices and man the video screens? Plus, any school could still offer those kinds of opportunities without a millions-in-debt football team.

You cannot be serious.

Most of the that squandered money is for other sports most likely. Football and basketball are the only sports really that have any way of bringing any kind of revenue stream into college athletics. So really you're arguing that if you don't have a football program capable of supporting all of your other sports then you should just drop athletics altogether? ODU used about 28.7 million in student fees last year. Football's deficit was about 2.8 million.

That's a pretty steep deficit. I wonder what the deficit for women's softball at ODU is?

What I am saying is that in the long run, intercollegiate athletics has to be self-supporting to be justifiable. Doesn't matter how you break it down, but if the athletic department is spending more than it brings in, then cuts have to be made. And no, "brings in" can't include self-soaking of students.

Any athletic department - my USF included - that is currently soaking its students to pay for athletics should have a 5-year, at most 10-year, plan to become self-sufficient, at the end of which time the student fees are eliminated and the athletic department has to exist on the real revenue generated by tickets, parking, etc. only.

(07-12-2018 12:42 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-12-2018 12:21 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(07-12-2018 11:27 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-08-2018 03:33 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(07-07-2018 04:51 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  A community college may not have the programs the student wants.

There's a reason admins hold attendance at a university hostage to payment of athletic fees - otherwise most wouldn't pay them. And unlike fees for student newspapers or radio stations, they have zero academic or vocational content.

Fees for intramural sports? Very justified, as physical education is part of the Socratic educational ideal of mind, body, spirit and are open to all students. Intercollegiate athletics are nothing like that.

Athletics do not have zero academic or vocational content.
Sports information departments use student interns and train them in photography, press release writing, and taking stats during games. One of my best friends started his career as a student SID intern, used that experience to get a part-time job with a regional newspaper and then full-time gigs with two large newspapers.
The video department trains videographers in shooting content and editing. Both often do social media things. Know a guy who went from student videographer for football to running the entire video system for a racetrack including the video board and satellite feed for off-track wagering sites.
Most have marketing interns.
Most have students in athletic training getting actual hands on experience.
Mississippi State has a turf management degree program, know a guy who is now a parks director for a small city who graduated from the program and he got hands on experience at Miss State athletic venues, that landed him a job at my local community to set up and maintain the fields for a new athletic site, from that had expanded responsibilities leading to running an entire parks and rec department.
My son's former girlfriend was drum major for A-State and had to give up the role when she switched majors (but could remain in the band) because being a drum major greatly increases a music major's chances of landing a teaching job with a high school.

Athletic departments absolutely have an academic and vocational component.

Oh come on. Tens of millions squandered chasing a P5 dream annually and that is supposed to be justified because a handful of kids get to help the groundskeeper plant the turf and a few others help film practices and man the video screens? Plus, any school could still offer those kinds of opportunities without a millions-in-debt football team.

You cannot be serious.

Most of the that squandered money is for other sports most likely. Football and basketball are the only sports really that have any way of bringing any kind of revenue stream into college athletics. So really you're arguing that if you don't have a football program capable of supporting all of your other sports then you should just drop athletics altogether? ODU used about 28.7 million in student fees last year. Football's deficit was about 2.8 million.

That's a pretty steep deficit. I wonder what the deficit for women's softball at ODU is?

What I am saying is that in the long run, intercollegiate athletics has to be self-supporting to be justifiable. Doesn't matter how you break it down, but if the athletic department is spending more than it brings in, then cuts have to be made. And no, "brings in" can't include self-soaking of students.

Any athletic department - my USF included - that is currently soaking its students to pay for athletics should have a 5-year, at most 10-year, plan to become self-sufficient, at the end of which time the student fees are eliminated and the athletic department has to exist on the real revenue generated by tickets, parking, etc. only.

Well, basically you are requiring a program to be run like a self supporting business while the law is requiring it to be run as an non-profit affirmative action program for women. Thats an almost impossible tight rope to walk that only the richest of all schools can actually traverse successfully. These programs for the most part cannot be all things to all people. If it needs to be run like a business--then it needs to have the freedom to eliminate the portions of the program that don't make money and are a drain on the limited resources. If its an affirmative action program---then it needs to be unhitched from any real expectation that it will operate as a fully self sustaining business like operation.

In the current environment--I'd say these programs live in an "in between" world where they strive to be as self sufficient as possible while serving as a business in some respects, as a womens affirmative action scholarship program in some respects, as a student amenity in some respects, and as the primary marketing arm of the university in many respects.

Bottom line---Administrations see value in these programs or else they wouldnt exist. Simple as that.

(07-12-2018 12:42 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-12-2018 12:21 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(07-12-2018 11:27 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-08-2018 03:33 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(07-07-2018 04:51 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  A community college may not have the programs the student wants.

There's a reason admins hold attendance at a university hostage to payment of athletic fees - otherwise most wouldn't pay them. And unlike fees for student newspapers or radio stations, they have zero academic or vocational content.

Fees for intramural sports? Very justified, as physical education is part of the Socratic educational ideal of mind, body, spirit and are open to all students. Intercollegiate athletics are nothing like that.

Athletics do not have zero academic or vocational content.
Sports information departments use student interns and train them in photography, press release writing, and taking stats during games. One of my best friends started his career as a student SID intern, used that experience to get a part-time job with a regional newspaper and then full-time gigs with two large newspapers.
The video department trains videographers in shooting content and editing. Both often do social media things. Know a guy who went from student videographer for football to running the entire video system for a racetrack including the video board and satellite feed for off-track wagering sites.
Most have marketing interns.
Most have students in athletic training getting actual hands on experience.
Mississippi State has a turf management degree program, know a guy who is now a parks director for a small city who graduated from the program and he got hands on experience at Miss State athletic venues, that landed him a job at my local community to set up and maintain the fields for a new athletic site, from that had expanded responsibilities leading to running an entire parks and rec department.
My son's former girlfriend was drum major for A-State and had to give up the role when she switched majors (but could remain in the band) because being a drum major greatly increases a music major's chances of landing a teaching job with a high school.

Athletic departments absolutely have an academic and vocational component.

Oh come on. Tens of millions squandered chasing a P5 dream annually and that is supposed to be justified because a handful of kids get to help the groundskeeper plant the turf and a few others help film practices and man the video screens? Plus, any school could still offer those kinds of opportunities without a millions-in-debt football team.

You cannot be serious.

Most of the that squandered money is for other sports most likely. Football and basketball are the only sports really that have any way of bringing any kind of revenue stream into college athletics. So really you're arguing that if you don't have a football program capable of supporting all of your other sports then you should just drop athletics altogether? ODU used about 28.7 million in student fees last year. Football's deficit was about 2.8 million.

That's a pretty steep deficit. I wonder what the deficit for women's softball at ODU is?

What I am saying is that in the long run, intercollegiate athletics has to be self-supporting to be justifiable. Doesn't matter how you break it down, but if the athletic department is spending more than it brings in, then cuts have to be made. And no, "brings in" can't include self-soaking of students.

Any athletic department - my USF included - that is currently soaking its students to pay for athletics should have a 5-year, at most 10-year, plan to become self-sufficient, at the end of which time the student fees are eliminated and the athletic department has to exist on the real revenue generated by tickets, parking, etc. only.

Why? Why is it unjustifiable? Because you don't like it?

(07-12-2018 12:42 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-12-2018 12:21 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(07-12-2018 11:27 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-08-2018 03:33 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(07-07-2018 04:51 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  A community college may not have the programs the student wants.

There's a reason admins hold attendance at a university hostage to payment of athletic fees - otherwise most wouldn't pay them. And unlike fees for student newspapers or radio stations, they have zero academic or vocational content.

Fees for intramural sports? Very justified, as physical education is part of the Socratic educational ideal of mind, body, spirit and are open to all students. Intercollegiate athletics are nothing like that.

Athletics do not have zero academic or vocational content.
Sports information departments use student interns and train them in photography, press release writing, and taking stats during games. One of my best friends started his career as a student SID intern, used that experience to get a part-time job with a regional newspaper and then full-time gigs with two large newspapers.
The video department trains videographers in shooting content and editing. Both often do social media things. Know a guy who went from student videographer for football to running the entire video system for a racetrack including the video board and satellite feed for off-track wagering sites.
Most have marketing interns.
Most have students in athletic training getting actual hands on experience.
Mississippi State has a turf management degree program, know a guy who is now a parks director for a small city who graduated from the program and he got hands on experience at Miss State athletic venues, that landed him a job at my local community to set up and maintain the fields for a new athletic site, from that had expanded responsibilities leading to running an entire parks and rec department.
My son's former girlfriend was drum major for A-State and had to give up the role when she switched majors (but could remain in the band) because being a drum major greatly increases a music major's chances of landing a teaching job with a high school.

Athletic departments absolutely have an academic and vocational component.

Oh come on. Tens of millions squandered chasing a P5 dream annually and that is supposed to be justified because a handful of kids get to help the groundskeeper plant the turf and a few others help film practices and man the video screens? Plus, any school could still offer those kinds of opportunities without a millions-in-debt football team.

You cannot be serious.

Most of the that squandered money is for other sports most likely. Football and basketball are the only sports really that have any way of bringing any kind of revenue stream into college athletics. So really you're arguing that if you don't have a football program capable of supporting all of your other sports then you should just drop athletics altogether? ODU used about 28.7 million in student fees last year. Football's deficit was about 2.8 million.

That's a pretty steep deficit. I wonder what the deficit for women's softball at ODU is?

What I am saying is that in the long run, intercollegiate athletics has to be self-supporting to be justifiable. Doesn't matter how you break it down, but if the athletic department is spending more than it brings in, then cuts have to be made. And no, "brings in" can't include self-soaking of students.

Any athletic department - my USF included - that is currently soaking its students to pay for athletics should have a 5-year, at most 10-year, plan to become self-sufficient, at the end of which time the student fees are eliminated and the athletic department has to exist on the real revenue generated by tickets, parking, etc. only.

A 30 second tv commercial costs a 100,000 dollars. How long are football games again? You know with the name of the school on the screen the whole time? The one that shows the lovely looking campus? Or the cost of an ad in a newspaper that does the story? The sports shows that talk about the game? The news that covers the highlights and shows the score? The word of mouth from fans talking about the game? How much would a school have to pay for all of that?

(07-12-2018 01:07 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(07-12-2018 12:42 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-12-2018 12:21 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(07-12-2018 11:27 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-08-2018 03:33 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Athletics do not have zero academic or vocational content.
Sports information departments use student interns and train them in photography, press release writing, and taking stats during games. One of my best friends started his career as a student SID intern, used that experience to get a part-time job with a regional newspaper and then full-time gigs with two large newspapers.
The video department trains videographers in shooting content and editing. Both often do social media things. Know a guy who went from student videographer for football to running the entire video system for a racetrack including the video board and satellite feed for off-track wagering sites.
Most have marketing interns.
Most have students in athletic training getting actual hands on experience.
Mississippi State has a turf management degree program, know a guy who is now a parks director for a small city who graduated from the program and he got hands on experience at Miss State athletic venues, that landed him a job at my local community to set up and maintain the fields for a new athletic site, from that had expanded responsibilities leading to running an entire parks and rec department.
My son's former girlfriend was drum major for A-State and had to give up the role when she switched majors (but could remain in the band) because being a drum major greatly increases a music major's chances of landing a teaching job with a high school.

Athletic departments absolutely have an academic and vocational component.

Oh come on. Tens of millions squandered chasing a P5 dream annually and that is supposed to be justified because a handful of kids get to help the groundskeeper plant the turf and a few others help film practices and man the video screens? Plus, any school could still offer those kinds of opportunities without a millions-in-debt football team.

You cannot be serious.

Most of the that squandered money is for other sports most likely. Football and basketball are the only sports really that have any way of bringing any kind of revenue stream into college athletics. So really you're arguing that if you don't have a football program capable of supporting all of your other sports then you should just drop athletics altogether? ODU used about 28.7 million in student fees last year. Football's deficit was about 2.8 million.

That's a pretty steep deficit. I wonder what the deficit for women's softball at ODU is?

What I am saying is that in the long run, intercollegiate athletics has to be self-supporting to be justifiable. Doesn't matter how you break it down, but if the athletic department is spending more than it brings in, then cuts have to be made. And no, "brings in" can't include self-soaking of students.

Any athletic department - my USF included - that is currently soaking its students to pay for athletics should have a 5-year, at most 10-year, plan to become self-sufficient, at the end of which time the student fees are eliminated and the athletic department has to exist on the real revenue generated by tickets, parking, etc. only.

Why? Why is it unjustifiable? Because you don't like it?

OK - Money is being lost, students are paying fees to benefit other students, who travel around playing sporting events.

So what's the justification?

(07-12-2018 02:04 PM)TU4ever Wrote:  

(07-12-2018 12:42 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-12-2018 12:21 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(07-12-2018 11:27 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-08-2018 03:33 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Athletics do not have zero academic or vocational content.
Sports information departments use student interns and train them in photography, press release writing, and taking stats during games. One of my best friends started his career as a student SID intern, used that experience to get a part-time job with a regional newspaper and then full-time gigs with two large newspapers.
The video department trains videographers in shooting content and editing. Both often do social media things. Know a guy who went from student videographer for football to running the entire video system for a racetrack including the video board and satellite feed for off-track wagering sites.
Most have marketing interns.
Most have students in athletic training getting actual hands on experience.
Mississippi State has a turf management degree program, know a guy who is now a parks director for a small city who graduated from the program and he got hands on experience at Miss State athletic venues, that landed him a job at my local community to set up and maintain the fields for a new athletic site, from that had expanded responsibilities leading to running an entire parks and rec department.
My son's former girlfriend was drum major for A-State and had to give up the role when she switched majors (but could remain in the band) because being a drum major greatly increases a music major's chances of landing a teaching job with a high school.

Athletic departments absolutely have an academic and vocational component.

Oh come on. Tens of millions squandered chasing a P5 dream annually and that is supposed to be justified because a handful of kids get to help the groundskeeper plant the turf and a few others help film practices and man the video screens? Plus, any school could still offer those kinds of opportunities without a millions-in-debt football team.

You cannot be serious.

Most of the that squandered money is for other sports most likely. Football and basketball are the only sports really that have any way of bringing any kind of revenue stream into college athletics. So really you're arguing that if you don't have a football program capable of supporting all of your other sports then you should just drop athletics altogether? ODU used about 28.7 million in student fees last year. Football's deficit was about 2.8 million.

That's a pretty steep deficit. I wonder what the deficit for women's softball at ODU is?

What I am saying is that in the long run, intercollegiate athletics has to be self-supporting to be justifiable. Doesn't matter how you break it down, but if the athletic department is spending more than it brings in, then cuts have to be made. And no, "brings in" can't include self-soaking of students.

Any athletic department - my USF included - that is currently soaking its students to pay for athletics should have a 5-year, at most 10-year, plan to become self-sufficient, at the end of which time the student fees are eliminated and the athletic department has to exist on the real revenue generated by tickets, parking, etc. only.

A 30 second tv commercial costs a 100,000 dollars. How long are football games again? You know with the name of the school on the screen the whole time? The one that shows the lovely looking campus? Or the cost of an ad in a newspaper that does the story? The sports shows that talk about the game? The news that covers the highlights and shows the score? The word of mouth from fans talking about the game? How much would a school have to pay for all of that?

Apparently, not much. We have evidence from schools that have gone from FCS, where you get very little of any of that alleged 'exposure', to FBS, and while there typically is a bump in revenues from being in an FBS conference and also from some alumni who are eager to see "bigger time" football, it's not much.

So that "not much" is the net value of all that you mention, and it still adds up to losing lots of money.

That said, Tulane is different. You guys are private, have a billion-dollar endowment, and have a national academic reputation. So if you want to lose $30 million a year on athletics that you don't need, that's literally your business. And heck, you've earned it. It's like my wife wasting a thousand bucks on a handbag she doesn't need, but makes her feel good or something. OK, it's a vanity expense, but she's worth it.

But state schools? Eastern Tennessee State U? That's a different story.

(07-12-2018 02:55 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-12-2018 01:07 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(07-12-2018 12:42 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-12-2018 12:21 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(07-12-2018 11:27 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Oh come on. Tens of millions squandered chasing a P5 dream annually and that is supposed to be justified because a handful of kids get to help the groundskeeper plant the turf and a few others help film practices and man the video screens? Plus, any school could still offer those kinds of opportunities without a millions-in-debt football team.

You cannot be serious.

Most of the that squandered money is for other sports most likely. Football and basketball are the only sports really that have any way of bringing any kind of revenue stream into college athletics. So really you're arguing that if you don't have a football program capable of supporting all of your other sports then you should just drop athletics altogether? ODU used about 28.7 million in student fees last year. Football's deficit was about 2.8 million.

That's a pretty steep deficit. I wonder what the deficit for women's softball at ODU is?

What I am saying is that in the long run, intercollegiate athletics has to be self-supporting to be justifiable. Doesn't matter how you break it down, but if the athletic department is spending more than it brings in, then cuts have to be made. And no, "brings in" can't include self-soaking of students.

Any athletic department - my USF included - that is currently soaking its students to pay for athletics should have a 5-year, at most 10-year, plan to become self-sufficient, at the end of which time the student fees are eliminated and the athletic department has to exist on the real revenue generated by tickets, parking, etc. only.

Why? Why is it unjustifiable? Because you don't like it?

OK - Money is being lost, students are paying fees to benefit other students, who travel around playing sporting events.

So what's the justification?

They can go to all the games, no charge. Did you take advantage of everything your college experience had to offer? Go to every speaking event, every social event, every art event? None of us did. But you paid for them. It's not an a la carte experience. Take online classes if you want that.


Do you hold the same feelings for high school sports? Or maybe you don't have kids at all and feel you shouldn't have to pay for schools at all. Go yell at the kids on your lawn.

(07-12-2018 03:01 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-12-2018 02:04 PM)TU4ever Wrote:  

(07-12-2018 12:42 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-12-2018 12:21 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(07-12-2018 11:27 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Oh come on. Tens of millions squandered chasing a P5 dream annually and that is supposed to be justified because a handful of kids get to help the groundskeeper plant the turf and a few others help film practices and man the video screens? Plus, any school could still offer those kinds of opportunities without a millions-in-debt football team.

You cannot be serious.

Most of the that squandered money is for other sports most likely. Football and basketball are the only sports really that have any way of bringing any kind of revenue stream into college athletics. So really you're arguing that if you don't have a football program capable of supporting all of your other sports then you should just drop athletics altogether? ODU used about 28.7 million in student fees last year. Football's deficit was about 2.8 million.

That's a pretty steep deficit. I wonder what the deficit for women's softball at ODU is?

What I am saying is that in the long run, intercollegiate athletics has to be self-supporting to be justifiable. Doesn't matter how you break it down, but if the athletic department is spending more than it brings in, then cuts have to be made. And no, "brings in" can't include self-soaking of students.

Any athletic department - my USF included - that is currently soaking its students to pay for athletics should have a 5-year, at most 10-year, plan to become self-sufficient, at the end of which time the student fees are eliminated and the athletic department has to exist on the real revenue generated by tickets, parking, etc. only.

A 30 second tv commercial costs a 100,000 dollars. How long are football games again? You know with the name of the school on the screen the whole time? The one that shows the lovely looking campus? Or the cost of an ad in a newspaper that does the story? The sports shows that talk about the game? The news that covers the highlights and shows the score? The word of mouth from fans talking about the game? How much would a school have to pay for all of that?

Apparently, not much. We have evidence from schools that have gone from FCS, where you get very little of any of that alleged 'exposure', to FBS, and while there typically is a bump in revenues from being in an FBS conference and also from some alumni who are eager to see "bigger time" football, it's not much.

So that "not much" is the net value of all that you mention, and it still adds up to losing lots of money.

That's conjecture. You have no evidence.

(07-12-2018 03:18 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(07-12-2018 03:01 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-12-2018 02:04 PM)TU4ever Wrote:  

(07-12-2018 12:42 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-12-2018 12:21 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  Most of the that squandered money is for other sports most likely. Football and basketball are the only sports really that have any way of bringing any kind of revenue stream into college athletics. So really you're arguing that if you don't have a football program capable of supporting all of your other sports then you should just drop athletics altogether? ODU used about 28.7 million in student fees last year. Football's deficit was about 2.8 million.

That's a pretty steep deficit. I wonder what the deficit for women's softball at ODU is?

What I am saying is that in the long run, intercollegiate athletics has to be self-supporting to be justifiable. Doesn't matter how you break it down, but if the athletic department is spending more than it brings in, then cuts have to be made. And no, "brings in" can't include self-soaking of students.

Any athletic department - my USF included - that is currently soaking its students to pay for athletics should have a 5-year, at most 10-year, plan to become self-sufficient, at the end of which time the student fees are eliminated and the athletic department has to exist on the real revenue generated by tickets, parking, etc. only.

A 30 second tv commercial costs a 100,000 dollars. How long are football games again? You know with the name of the school on the screen the whole time? The one that shows the lovely looking campus? Or the cost of an ad in a newspaper that does the story? The sports shows that talk about the game? The news that covers the highlights and shows the score? The word of mouth from fans talking about the game? How much would a school have to pay for all of that?

Apparently, not much. We have evidence from schools that have gone from FCS, where you get very little of any of that alleged 'exposure', to FBS, and while there typically is a bump in revenues from being in an FBS conference and also from some alumni who are eager to see "bigger time" football, it's not much.

So that "not much" is the net value of all that you mention, and it still adds up to losing lots of money.

That's conjecture. You have no evidence.

Lol, it's not a commercial for donations. It's a commercial for students. Some of whom (a good percentage since division 1 schools tend to have the biggest alumni bases) want to attend a school with that reputation and atmosphere. There are many reasons to choose schools.

(07-08-2018 03:10 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(07-06-2018 09:33 PM)TU4ever Wrote:  

(07-06-2018 02:12 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-06-2018 01:40 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-06-2018 12:50 PM)Wedge Wrote:  I don't agree with this because it's a restricted market, not a free market. A student who wants to live at home to keep expenses under control while attending Houston or New Mexico or Nevada might not have any viable alternatives within reasonable commuting distance. Where are they going to go to college instead if they object to a fee to subsidize D-I athletics? There's no way that they will see paying an additional $10,000 or more per year in living expenses (which will likely require a student loan) at a comparable farther-away school as a viable alternative to paying a $300 or $500 a year athletics tax.

Yes, Coog seems to think the typical student has an unlimited travel and relocation budget and can just opt to go to any of hundreds of colleges. That's not reality.

The market argument fails for that reason (many schools have close to a captive audience) and because the fee, though tough to swallow, is bundled with tuition, housing, etc that are much larger.

The market would work if students had a real choice - the fee being optional rather than being held hostage to enrollment.

Actually---it is. Its up to you what your level of sacrifice is to acheive your goal. The only limits are those you set for yourself. You can move. You can do community college and/or on-line universities. If you demand a "better" education---there are student loans to bridge the gap in costs. There is a universe of educational option these days. There are only 360 D1 schools (and even some of those have no athletic fees). So yes---guilty as charged----I do believe there are plenty of choices and options out there---even for the poorest and most limited among us. Count me among them as one who largely paid his own way through school.

I don't know about Houston, but here in the immeadiate Tulsa area we have several non-div 1 schools and a hand full who have no athletics what so ever. We also have two private university, ok state, and OU as options who play division 1 sports. Can anyone name our non-division 1 schools in the eastern half of oklahoma? I'll wait.

East Central, OK Baptist, SE Oklahoma State are all in the Great American, not sure what an Oklahoman would call "eastern" Oklahoma.

Rogers State in Claemore.
Northeastern Oklahoma State in Tahlequah D2 and one in Broken Arrow
Oklahoma Wesleyan NAIA
Eastern Oklahoma State which I think is a JC Wilburton
Seminole State Seminole
Carl Albert State College JC in Poteau, I would not be surprise that it could go to 4 year since it is growing in population wise.
Murray State in Tishomingo
Northeastern Oklahoma A&M in Miami. They could change their name to Miami, Oklahoma University.
Oklahoma State Tech Okmulgee
Pawnee Nation Pawnee
Bacone College found cash to stay open in Muskogee
Oklahoma Wesleyan in Bartlesville NAIA
Virginia College in Tulsa
Carl Albert, Rose State and Seminole State could go 4 year and join the NAIA. They all have sports.

(07-12-2018 03:13 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(07-12-2018 02:55 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-12-2018 01:07 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(07-12-2018 12:42 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-12-2018 12:21 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  Most of the that squandered money is for other sports most likely. Football and basketball are the only sports really that have any way of bringing any kind of revenue stream into college athletics. So really you're arguing that if you don't have a football program capable of supporting all of your other sports then you should just drop athletics altogether? ODU used about 28.7 million in student fees last year. Football's deficit was about 2.8 million.

That's a pretty steep deficit. I wonder what the deficit for women's softball at ODU is?

What I am saying is that in the long run, intercollegiate athletics has to be self-supporting to be justifiable. Doesn't matter how you break it down, but if the athletic department is spending more than it brings in, then cuts have to be made. And no, "brings in" can't include self-soaking of students.

Any athletic department - my USF included - that is currently soaking its students to pay for athletics should have a 5-year, at most 10-year, plan to become self-sufficient, at the end of which time the student fees are eliminated and the athletic department has to exist on the real revenue generated by tickets, parking, etc. only.

Why? Why is it unjustifiable? Because you don't like it?

OK - Money is being lost, students are paying fees to benefit other students, who travel around playing sporting events.

So what's the justification?

They can go to all the games, no charge. Did you take advantage of everything your college experience had to offer? Go to every speaking event, every social event, every art event? None of us did. But you paid for them. It's not an a la carte experience. Take online classes if you want that.

Big difference is that college sponsored art and speaking events are a legitimate aspect of the mind/body/spirit mission of any university worthy of the name. I majored in business and never had any interest in attending say a debate between political scientists over in the social sciences department, but if it involved paying a stipend to a visiting professor I'd have been 100% supportive of that and if my fees helped pay that would be fine by me, as that is part of the mission of a university.

So, btw, is intramural athletics, because everyone can participate.

Intercollegiate athletics is nothing like that, so it should pay its own way.

(07-12-2018 03:18 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(07-12-2018 03:01 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-12-2018 02:04 PM)TU4ever Wrote:  

(07-12-2018 12:42 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-12-2018 12:21 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  Most of the that squandered money is for other sports most likely. Football and basketball are the only sports really that have any way of bringing any kind of revenue stream into college athletics. So really you're arguing that if you don't have a football program capable of supporting all of your other sports then you should just drop athletics altogether? ODU used about 28.7 million in student fees last year. Football's deficit was about 2.8 million.

That's a pretty steep deficit. I wonder what the deficit for women's softball at ODU is?

What I am saying is that in the long run, intercollegiate athletics has to be self-supporting to be justifiable. Doesn't matter how you break it down, but if the athletic department is spending more than it brings in, then cuts have to be made. And no, "brings in" can't include self-soaking of students.

Any athletic department - my USF included - that is currently soaking its students to pay for athletics should have a 5-year, at most 10-year, plan to become self-sufficient, at the end of which time the student fees are eliminated and the athletic department has to exist on the real revenue generated by tickets, parking, etc. only.

A 30 second tv commercial costs a 100,000 dollars. How long are football games again? You know with the name of the school on the screen the whole time? The one that shows the lovely looking campus? Or the cost of an ad in a newspaper that does the story? The sports shows that talk about the game? The news that covers the highlights and shows the score? The word of mouth from fans talking about the game? How much would a school have to pay for all of that?

Apparently, not much. We have evidence from schools that have gone from FCS, where you get very little of any of that alleged 'exposure', to FBS, and while there typically is a bump in revenues from being in an FBS conference and also from some alumni who are eager to see "bigger time" football, it's not much.

So that "not much" is the net value of all that you mention, and it still adds up to losing lots of money.

That's conjecture. You have no evidence.

Actually, that's not conjecture, it's a logical inference about the value of FBS - meaning televised - athletics. There is in fact a marginal bump in revenues but still overall a big deficit, which strongly suggests the alleged benefits of FBS and student funding isn't worth the cost.

What is conjecture is my explanation for why boondoggle football exists at many places it shouldn't: Elite alumni and administrator ego stroking. It's probably correct but yes, unproven.

What's astonishing here though is that those who want to spend money on something should be the ones with the burden of proof to show its value. If having a football team at the cost of $20m in student fees really does pay off in real benefits, there should be plenty of studies proving that to be true.

So where are they?