She's on FOX (rather strange), sounds like her "free" tuition plan could wipe out subsidized athletics, because she would force colleges to cut costs and student costs prior to receiving government checks.

Bernie Sanders also specifically mentioned athletic spending in a debate a month or so ago.

Regardless of politics, I believe that this is an issue that is coming whether we like it or not. Budget crunches such as what Louisiana is facing right now threatens to fundamentally change the current college athletic spending levels. I imagine that this will first impact the pay of college coaches and infrastructure spending.

All this free stuff. Of course, getting a politician to explain how it will be funded is a most unpopular topic with them, and the $19 trillion (and growing) national debt is off the table for serious discussion.

St. Cloud State in Minnesota had to cut a bunch of sports due to a budget crunch. They're in D-2, but are very similar in size to ETSU and have a pretty solid Division I hockey program.

I am probably expressing unpopular opinion (then don't say it, right?), but even as much as I love Bucs' basketball and want to see them play in Vegas, for example, the entire culture and cost of college athletics has gotten out of control and out of scope. It's a model that would fail privately for most schools without subsidy or donation, and even with both funding options it is still challenging many schools greatly. There are too many schools anymore to ensure market share for financially thriving programs at every institution. If the true spirit of college ahletics is extending college opportunity, then as much as the net sum game stinks, if more kids go to college on the whole but less ahletes are paid for because of Clinton or anyome else's direction, so be it. This nation needs higher education skills without sticking students with the debt. The cost of attendance is another ridiculously inflated mess.