Stop Funding College Sports

Why should taxpayers have to pay for college athletic programs?

Last week Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell handed down a tough directive to state agency heads: As you start putting together your budgets for the next biennium, look hard for places to cut—and don't spare anything. Programs that bring matching federal funds? On the table. Programs required by current state law? On the table. We can always change the law.

Given these stark realities, perhaps now is the point at which Virginia leaders should give college athletics a long, hard look. Why? Two reasons: (1) They cost a gawdawful lot of money, and (2) they have nothing to do with the purpose of a university.

Most college athletic departments are a net drain on the budget. Three years ago, the NCAA issued a report that found most athletic departments operate in the red. A more recent analysis by Bloomberg found the same thing: 46 of the 53 schools it looked at subsidized their sports programs. The money usually comes from sources such as student activity fees, such as that charged at Virginia Commonwealth University. Earlier this year VCU jacked up its fee by $50 to help fund the Rams basketball program.

A story last year in USA Today reported that "at least six schools—all in Virginia—charged each of their students more than $1,000 as an athletics fee for the 2008-09 school year. That ranged from 10 percent to more than 23 percent of the total tuition and mandatory-fee charges for in-state students." Yet some students never attend so much as a single basketball or football game—never mind a lacrosse match or rowing competition.

There are some exceptions. Depending on the year, one to two dozen athletic departments around the country turn a profit. Those are the ones such as Virginia Tech with huge football programs (or, occasionally, great basketball). At those schools, the football and men's basketball teams end up subsidizing all the rest—from women's basketball to men's tennis.

Kristi Dosh, a lawyer who specializes in sports financing and who runs the blog businessofcollegesports.com, has analyzed how much sports other than football and men's basketball siphon off. Most of the time, she has found, the cost of other sports more than outweighs the net gain from football and basketball, and the losses can be huge even before adding in big variables such as coaches' salaries, aid to student athletes and recruiting.

Take the University of Florida. During the 2009-2010 school year it raked in $44 million from football and $2 million from men's basketball—but lost $2.8 million on women's basketball, $5.3 million on other men's sports, and $10 million on other women's sports. And that's before you include the cost of coaches' salaries ($17.4 million), aid to student athletes ($7.5 million), and recruiting ($1.4 million).

Unlike Florida most universities don't have a top-20 football team—if they have a football team at all. And even many that do end up looking like Rutgers, which (reports Bloomberg) last year gave the women's basketball coach a monthly golf allowance while removing professors' desk phones from the history department to cut costs.

True, Virginia law ostensibly limits the use of public funds for athletics. But athletic-department budgets are notoriously opaque: Money pours into one big pot from a variety of sources (e.g., ticket sales, alumni donations, student fees), gets mingled together and then gets spent on everything from salaries to Gatorade. As a VMI spokesman told USA Today, information about athletic fees is "buried in our budget."

But not only is the financing fudge-able, money is fungible. In other words: If VCU were not spending $600 of each student fee on athletics, some of that money might be available for, say, assistant professors. Ditto for alumni donations, endowment proceeds, and the like. This in turn would reduce a school's need for state funds.

Sports backers and school officials will have some retorts to all of this. For example, they will say students need diversion. Maybe — but when they want it, they go to football and basketball games, not men's golf or women's lacrosse.

Well, schools will say, students are not just brains on sticks; we are trying to develop the whole person. This would be a good argument for mandatory student participation in intramural sports or a music appreciation class. It is not a very strong argument for subsidizing field hockey away games.

(Then there's Title IX—but that's a whole column unto itself.)

Finally, it is also true that, like athletic departments, nearly all university operations are a net drain on the budget. Your average English or religious-studies department is not what anyone would call a cash cow. About that, two points.

First, this goes to the heart of what a university ought to do: educate students—not entertain them. Second, there is no doubt that college course catalogues could use pruning as well. Most schools have a few notorious "gut" classes—where you get a B for signing up and an A for showing up—as well as numerous less-than-crucial courses such as the University of Virginia’s "Narratives of Illness and Doctoring" or James Madison University’s "Oral History and Social Justice."

They should be on the table, too.

A. Barton Hinkle is a columnist at the Richmond Times-Dispatch. This article originally appeared in the Richmond Times-Dispatch.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • ||

    They actually have more to do with the purpose of the university than Hinckle thinks. I am surprised a libertarian can't figure this out.

    Universities are businesses. They have to attract customers known as students. Some students love the culture around college athletics. I guarantee you more than a few students have chosen Duke over equally good schools because they wanted to go to Cameron Indoor Stadium and watch the basketball team and root for the team for the rest of their lives as alums. Also, it is a way for schools to get their name out to prospective students. The service academies will tell you that their football team and annual games with Notre Dame and with each other are their best recruiting tools. They is why they don't get rid of their sports programs. And smaller colleges are re-introducing football because it is a way to recruit sought after male students.

  • BILL3||

    What about the ones that don't? I went to college, had no scholarship, didn't join any fraternities, didn't participate in any clubs except for the student newspaper, why should I pay for things I'm not doing? Besides, the activity fee is a lie, if you join the Scuba Club you're still gonna have to pay for the diving trips! The same with horseback riding, photography, and almost everything else.

    The reality is that universities are not run like businesses except for for profit colleges and vocational training schools.

    Universities are scammers, they get money from the feds yet try to charge as much tuition as they can. They're also major indoctrinators and censorers, they'll support free speech as long as you say the right things. Want to make fun of the feminists? Better have FIRE on speed dial since that could get you suspended.

    In the end, no student should be forced to pay for something he's not doing. As for sports, if advertising isn't enough to fund them, then the jocks need to pay their "fair share," which is the term progressives use when they want to steal money from someone else. Sorry jocks, I don't hate you but I don't want to fund your lifestyle either.

  • sarcasmic||

    One of the factors in choosing where I went to college was a lack of shmortz. Got no use for the stuff.

  • ||

    No one is forcing you to pay for anything. If you don't like the fee, don't go to the school. And of course not everyone chooses on that basis. But some do and that is why it is effective marketing.

  • ||

    It's effective marketing for students gunning for an athletic career. Otherwise, no. Most students choose a school based on either a party atmosphere or the prestige for a degree offered there.

  • ||

    It is effective marketing for people who like the culture around athletic events of which there are a lot.

  • Brett||

    Minot has a great party atmosphere and if you work on the rigs you get a paycheck. just sayin'

  • ||

    I'm assuming you've been to college and that you didn't go to an SEC school or a school that does well in football or basketball at least once every four or five years.

    I'm at an SEC school. When I was looking at schools, I knew that I wanted to go to an SEC school because of the football scene. My team is terrible this year, and tomorrow we're going to lose at home to one of the best teams in the country in a serious way. But I'm still going to put on heels and a dress and go to that stadium and watch us lose.

    On Monday, I'm going to go sit in an accounting class so I can eventually end up with a degree from a top-20 accounting school. I didn't know our accounting program was so good. I'll be staying a year past my scholarship in order to get all of my degrees finished, so in this case (and there are plenty of cases like mine at this school) a sports program's worked out well for my university.

  • CalebT||

    You either attend Tennessee or Ole Miss...Spelling accuracy says Ole Miss.

  • ||

    Ole Miss. I'm the spawn of an LSU alum and an LSU fan myself, though, so I'm pegging my championship hopes on the Tigers this year.

  • ||

    From a tiger alum, you've pegged it well! UM is no slouch of a public school. I was going to transfer out of LSU until I went to my first game.

  • ||

    I read something that Ole Miss has the prettiest co-eds in the country. Perhaps more important than a Top 20 football team.

  • Yeah||

    If you don't like the fee, don't go to the school

    Duke: Love it or leave it!

  • ||

    You chose to be there and are paying money to be there, so yeah, love it or leave it.

  • Yeah||

    And principles be damned!

  • ||

    What principles? If you don't like the school, don't go to it.

  • Yeah||

    What principles?

    I'll type more slowly for you.
    The...principle...of...having...to...pay...exorbitant...athletic...fees...to...support...sports...you...don't...care...about...or...have...any...intention...of...watching.

  • ||

    Then go to a school that doesn't have such fees you fucking nitwit.

  • ||

    If you don't like eating in a restaurant that allows smokers, then go somewhere else.

    Oh wait! You can't do that!

    Dumbass...

    CB

  • ||

    But there are lots of schools that don't have athletic programs. There is a big one in Chicago you might have heard of.

    And there are tons of private schools that cater to every interest imaginable. It is not my problem if the market doesn't cater to yours.

  • America||

    Love it or leave it!

  • ||

    I seem to have posted too soon, John. Further reading tells me we aren't so far apart here.

    Sorry!

    CB

  • Dookie Brown||

    Good luck finding one that doesn't.

  • k2000k||

    I think John articluated his principles. If you don't wan't to pay exorbinant fees because of a sports program don't go to that paticular school. I'll be honest, while the author makes a good point, there are far worse wastes of money than a schools atheletic program that the state is spending their money on

  • BILL3||

    Oh yeah? And what about my taxes? I may not like Harvard but when the government gives them millions of dollars, I'm paying for Harvard!

    So unless you're 100% private, you're not 100% unaccountable. Don't want the people to tell you what to do? Be like Bob Jones University or Liberty Colleges, they get away with murder because they don't accept government money. They won't even honor the GI Bill. Now that's what I call integrity.

  • ||

    If the program makes more money than it takes in, your are not subsidizing it. It is subsidizing you.

  • affenkopf||

    Most programs arent't.

  • Colonel_Angus||

    "If you don't like the fee, don't go to the school."

    Doesn't apply so well in skewed markets like publicly funded higher education.

  • ||

    Don't go to the school? No one is forcing you to pay for anything? That's a great indication of the libertarian mind.

    For public schools our tax dollars support these programs for the benefit of a few at the expense of all. You need to look at how public schools are financed before you post.

    The answer is to end athletic programs in colleges and let them find speculators that will fund them as semi-pro endeavors. See how long they survive in the free market, which would not be for long. As it stands now, the private sports league suck off the public teat as they allow our schools to train their talent. Enough already.

  • Zeb||

    Fuck. I agree with Grego.

  • Cliché Bandit||

    you better go wash.

  • Standard Libertarian Response||

    Universities are businesses.

    But...but...universities take public money! They are crony colleges!

  • soonerliberty||

    I guess they're not very successful businesses if the article is true. And that's the point. Otherwise, you are funding a losing enterprise, unless it's a case of "Well, without subsidies, the losses would have been greater," something that is impossible to prove.

    If they are truly businesses, let them operate so. If they lose money, they're done. If they make it, they survive.

    On the other hand, if students knowingly support the subsidization, then that's a different matter. However, I can see no rationalization for making the unwilling fund it.

  • ||

    They are only losing enterprises because the government makes them fund woman's sports that lose money. Lose Title IX and let them only run sports that make money.

  • Pope Jimbo||

    Sure lose Title IX, but keep that whole "student athlete" thing in place. Last thing we need is to have to start paying the players. Otherwise, football and basketball probably wouldn't be all that successful either.

  • ||

    If you had to pay the players it would never work. Run a football and basketball program for profit. Any other sports run them on alumni donations. If the alumni want to donate to support a baseball or woman's tennis team, good for them.

  • Pope Jimbo||

    Um. Yeah, that was sorta my point. The current system only works by exploiting the shit out of the "student athletes".

    I bet even Solyndra could have worked (well, worked longer) if they could have found some way to avoid paying their employees.

  • Cliché Bandit||

    The amature athlete is a myth. Those kids are being paid and paid well...free healthcare, free gyms, free trainers, reduced or free education, reduced or free room, reduced or free board. Dont fucking tell me we dont pay college athletes.

    I had to pay for my non degree.

  • Ventifact||

    Student athletes are compensated -- that's obvious.

    There's a cap on their compensation well below the market price top collegiate athletes could command -- that's also obvious.

  • affenkopf||

    If you don't take federal money you can lose Title IX.

  • ||

    Onward Hillsdale!!

  • ||

    Universities are businesses.

    The private ones, perhaps.

    The public ones? Supported by taxes? I don't see it.

  • ||

    Of course they are businesses. Just because they are just businesses run by the state. They still have to attract students don't they?

  • ||

    It's not that they aren't businesses, after a fashion, it's that they are businesses in what isn't quite a free market. The absurd distortions in pricing and in product offering are those you can only get from the constant meddling of government.

  • Colonel_Angus||

    NOT EVEN the "private" ones.

  • ||

    An alternative that would satisfy the marketing of school name recognition while ending student and taxpayer subsidies is to completely separate the athletic programs from the university. I’ve read that some schools other countries have done this.

    The athletic department then becomes a for profit that can decide which sports to offer, ignore Title IV, and if the athletes want to take classes, they get free or discounted tuition. The NFL, NBA and other professional leagues can pitch in to help run their collegiate farm teams. Boosters and fans can donate freely to the team or individuals players. The players get paid, schools keep their teams, division one football playoffs become a reality and the NCAA can piss off.

    /dreaming

  • ||

    They only reason they are not for profit is because of Title IX, which I would gladly get rid of.

  • ||

    But isn’t Title IX tied to college athletics only because they’re part of an educational institution that receives federal funding which also prevents any department under it from being for profit? A separate, private athletic business that leases the schools name would get around this and all the other unfair, unpopular or randomly enforced NCAA rules. Schools get their teams for marketing and recruiting, alumni keep giving, athletes get paid and Reasonoids don’t have to pay for any of it unless they choose to.

  • Brett||

    Have amateur programs funded purely by donations and fees including requiring people to bring their own equipment.

    Have a Semi-pro football and basketball league that pays its players and dosen't require players to attend school and allows team not affiliated with a college or university.

  • Robert||

    And you would, were it not (as Wally Olsen explained to me) for the tax advantages of schools. Alumni get to make tax-deductible donations to money-losing programs, and profitable programs, as long as they keep their profits in the institution, don't have to pay income taxes on them. No real estate taxes on school-owned stadiums either, and they can rent them out when they're not using them. Plus, scholarships are not counted as income for purposes of the student's taxes.

    All those tax advantages make it very hard for for-profit sports to compete for business inputs & outputs with them.

  • ||

    Sounds good to me.

    I remember watching the Bullshit episode on Cheerleading. The lady who called herself "The godmother of title 9" was one of the most smug and self-absorbed people on that show.

  • Dennis Webb||

    Universities are NOT businesses, since they are heavily subsidized by taxpayers. If they were businesses, the fact that they lose money every year (without the subsidies) means they would soon be out of business.

  • ||

    If that is why some kids go to a certain college, then they are fools.

    Do away with ALL college and high school sports. they are a waste of time and money.

  • ||

    they have nothing to do with the purpose of a university.

    Cue moronic spluttering dudgeon.

    (too slow)

  • ||

    What did I write above that is not true? They are just marketing schemes. And if you repealed Title IX so schools could get rid of money losing woman's sports, they would be profitable marketing schemes.

  • ||

    I think what Hinkle means by "the point of a University" is "to provide education." Marketing your sports program would be perfect, if your business was a Sports Camp.

    Are there private K-12 schools that market the excellence of their recess period? Or, "send your kids to our school, we have excellent plumbing." Recess and good water pressure from your faucets are cool and all, but they don't actually provide any education (excepting the Lessons Of The Schoolyard.)

    Also, what RC said above: private schools can market whatever they want, and if people want to buy it, whatever, it's their money. PUBLIC schools, which taxpayers are forced to fund, need to focus their spending on the necessities of education.

    Your local public highschool wants a new football field? Well, you better hope they can get Pepsi to sponsor it, because spending tax dollars on it is inappropriate. (i'm conflicted when it comes to spending taxmoney on recess equipment. probably a moot point since all recess equipment will probably be banned within the next 10 years.)

    Of course, all this could be resolved by simply eliminating public education entirely...

  • ||

    Are there private K-12 schools that market the excellence of their recess period? Or, "send your kids to our school, we have excellent plumbing." Recess and good water pressure from your faucets are cool and all, but they don't actually provide any education (excepting the Lessons Of The Schoolyard.)

    You better believe they do. Independent private schools market on lots of things besides academics. Some of them market themselves on their small size and ease of kids being able to fit in. Some of them market their great sports programs. There is a reason why Catholic schools have a habit of dominating high school football in the Midwest.

  • k2000k||

    It is the same here in the pacific northwest. One catholic school, which is all boys, markets itself as a relatively inexspensive private school education coupled with a very dominant presence in athletics. Another private catholic school in the area markets its well developed special needs programs on top of its top notch education.

  • ||

    Actually there are private high schools recruit using their athletics programs as ways to draw students.

  • ||

    well, good for them and their not-tax-funded-selves.

  • Colonel_Angus||

    "i'm conflicted when it comes to spending taxmoney on recess equipment."

    Swings and dodgeballs teach you about physics and shit.

  • sarcasmic||

    Q: How many college athletes does it take to screw in a light bulb?

    A: One. But he gets three credits for it.

  • ||

    Hopefully, he's been inspired by Marconi.

  • ||

    Also remember another lovely interference from the masters of political correctness Title IX. That requires schools to dump often profitable sports and forces them to have losing money sports such as womens lacrosse and womens rowing.

  • Zuo||

    The easiest and most fair solution to Title 9 is simply to declare all sports as coed. Of course not many women will make the team, but plenty of whities are passed over for blacks, disproportionally so. Yet, nobody I've ever heard thinks whites should have their own basketball and football leagues.

  • Colonel_Angus||

    I realistically could see women and men happening in basketball. Just saying.

  • ||

    I question your sight then. MAYBE a few at the lower-end schools, but not much more than the equivalent of the token kicker at mid-majors we see from time to time.

  • Colonel_Angus||

    With the size and appearance of female basketball players, and the pussy ass flailing around of most male college players these days, the chicks might be better.

  • A fan||

    Only two women have ever dunked in college b-ball to my knowledge. Yeah, right, they are going to compete.

    (lay off the crack, dude)

  • affenkopf||

    The easiest and most fair solution to Title 9 is not taking federal money.

  • Zeb||

    I'm not so sure about easiest. Saying no to money (even with strings attached) doesn't seem to be very easy for many people.

  • ||

    Cuz dat shit like cocaine.

  • Mike E||

    So does that mean doing it like Hillsdale and not even allowing students to apply for federal loans and aid?

  • Zeb||

    I have had that thought as well. Just declare football to be coed and most of the problem is solved. I had a female friend in high school who was on the football team. It's not impossible.

  • Chris||

    I have seen it to, but they are always kickers or punters.

  • ||

    The headline implied (or maybe I read too much into it) that taxpayers were funding college sports. It turns out, students who choose to go to a college pay the fees. Commenters above have already alluded to the business decision (and marketing) that sports programs bring. But really, nobody is forcing anybody to pay these fees.

  • Yeah||

    nobody is forcing anybody to pay these fees

    That's right. And nobody is forcing me to register my car. If I don't like it, I don't have to drive.

  • k2000k||

    Lamar is right, if you don't want to pay those fees then don't go to that school. It's like smoking and bars. There are plenty of schools in this country that don't have sports programs. And it isn't like we suffer from a dearth of higher education institutions in this nation, or kid ourselves that harvard is really all that differernt from state u, outside of networking abilities they aren't.

  • A fan||

    There aren't any state-supported, state-subsidized, or state-run bars. False comparison.

  • ||

    Hey, Lamar!

  • EDG reppin' LBC||

    Sometimes I don't thrill you
    Sometimes I think I'll kill you
    Just don't let me fuck up will you
    'cause when I need a friend it's still you

    What a mess

    Goddamn I love that band!

  • Colonel_Angus||

    Who is paying students to pay the fees? That's right, taxpayers.

  • My Myself and I||

    But w/o tax money, how can we bribe BYU and ND to join the Big 12?

  • ||

    I guarantee you more than a few students have chosen Duke over equally good schools because they wanted to go to Cameron Indoor Stadium and watch the basketball team and root for the team for the rest of their lives as alums.

    If this is true, this country is in worse shape than even I imagined possible.

  • ||

    Why? Why is that not a perfectly rational choice. It is not like they are not getting an education with it. If your choice is say Duke or Northwestern, where both schools are about equal, how do you make the choice? You make it on weather and decide that you can't do the Chicago winters. How is that any different than making it on basis of the sports team?

    You guys just hate sports and can't think rationally about this.

  • Forrest Gump||

    You guys just hate sports and can't think rationally about this.

    Damn, talk about irony.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    You guys just hate sports and can't think rationally about this.

    Except you make the same arguments whenever anyone mentions the Humanities and Social Sciences.

    Believe or not, some people enjoy learning about them and are willing to pay money for the opportunity to study it. Or should universities only teach "John-approved" courses?

  • ||

    I am sure they do enjoy learning from it. And I have said numerous times on this thread that we should make these programs for profit and get rid of Title IX. If they make a buck and market the school what is the harm?

    And as far as liberal arts classes, if you made the programs for profit, the tax payers wouldn't be subsidizing them and the analogy wouldn't apply.

  • Title IX||

    Why is everybody always pickin' on me?

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    The best Liberal Arts schools tend to be private, in my experience.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    And I have said numerous times on this thread that we should make these programs for profit and get rid of Title IX. If they make a buck and market the school what is the harm?

    I agree with you there.

  • ||

    I love college football, watch the NCAA basketball tournament every year, etc., but I think its a colossal waste to fund college sports with tax dollars.

    I don't buy the marketing angle, either. First, if you choose a school based on their sports, you probably are among the many, many college students who shouldn't be in college. Second, if all the college teams stopped being tax-supported, not having one wouldn't put you behind on the whole getting-good-students front.

  • ||

    Bu the only reason they are "tax payer funded" is because we have Title Ix that forces schools to fund woman's sports that lose money. Get rid of Title IX. That is the problem.

    And as far as chosing schools based on sports, there is nothing irrational about that because you are not totally choosing it on that. But if two schools are equal and one has a great sports culture that you enjoy, why would you not go to that one? It is no different than going to a school because you like any other aspect of the social scene. The social scene and how you fit into it is not an unimportant factor in choosing a college. Not the only one, but it is a valid one.

  • No||

    the only reason they are "tax payer funded" is because we have Title IX

    Colleges and college sports have been tax-supported entities long before Title IX came into being.

  • ||

    If they make money they are not.

  • No||

    Public (and private, for that matter) colleges get public money. Public tax money. Many or most run athletic programs. Many or most charge their students athletic fees. If you think that tax money does not in some fashion support their athletic programs, then you also probably think that there is a Social Security Trust Fund.

  • ||

    Look dipshit, if the program costs 20 million and makes 50 million it is not being subsidized. I know you are stupid, but surely basic math is not beyond you.

  • No||

    if the program costs 20 million and makes 50 million it is not being subsidized

    Great! Then why do they steal $1000 "athletic fees" from their own students? Athletic programs are pigs at the trough, justifying their gluttony a thousand different ways. Students should have the right to opt out of the athletic fees and pay extra at the events if they choose to attend.

  • No||

    (Dipshit)

  • Yes||

    (Dipshit)

  • affenkopf||

    If they make money they are not.

    Most don't and most never have.

  • Colonel_Angus||

    I have a taxpayer funded college football stadium to show you. The TOWN raised taxes to give money to the state school to build it.

  • ||

    Ole Miss?

  • A fan||

    Duke sucks!

  • caspertheholyghost||

    It is true. And it is in worse shape than you ever imagined.

  • WallSt Occupier||

    That's why we're here

  • Forrest Gump||

    I decided to go to Alabama over MIT because of football. Roll Tide!

  • ||

    Has MIT ever had a teacher the likes of Prof. Paul Bryant?

  • Ed Kless||

    Anyone ever look into the athletic spending at George Mason University? Just curious.

    Seriously, this is a problem at the high school level especially here in Texas where football reigns. It is estimated the over one-half of education spending is on football and football related activities. BTW, I could high school bands in that mix as well.

  • ||

    So true. If I could make one change to pubsec education in Texas, it would be to abolish the football teams. No single action would do more to improve actual education.

  • Religion||

    Abolish football? Good one!

  • ||

    I know. Its on my list of things to do when I ascend to being God-Emperor, but it won't happen short of that.

  • Bible Belt||

    Don't be messin' with our Ball!

  • Plaxico Benny||

    Robber: Your football or your god!

    Benny: [pause]

    Robber: Well?

    Benny: I'm thinking!

  • ||

    Yeah because no one outside the bible belt in places like Ohio and Pennsylvania or Southern California plays big time college football. Nice to see bigotry and its life partner ignorance on display.

  • Plaxico Benny||

    Get your head out of your ass, John. Football in the South (the Bible Belt) is a religion. RC Dean gets it. Is he smarter than you? Or a "bigot"?

  • ||

    You have obviously never been to Southern California or Western Pennsylvania and Ohio. High School football is just as big in those places. You are an idiot.

  • Zeb||

    I don't think anyone was claiming that highschool football was only a big deal in Texas. Just that it is a very big deal in Texas. I would hope that we can all agree that subsidizing sports teams for public highschools is a waste of money and a bad idea.

  • Jeremy||

    I have. It's not. He may be. I don't think I am. I went to an SEC school though, so I may be.

  • Sparky||

    How dare you tie your comments in to the original question by using reference to the same geographical location you fucking ignorant bigot!

  • ||

    I would like to see a link to the "half of the money in public education on football". I don't believe that. I call shenanigans.

  • Ice Nine||

    If I could make one change to pubsec education in Texas, it would be to abolish the football teams.

    Watch for RC's head on the goalpost at this year's TX hs football championship game.

  • Jeanne d'Arc||

    ^
    What he said.

  • sarcasmic||

    Don't abolish it. Simply stop subsidizing it.

    If it is so popular then those who feel that they benefit from it will figure out a way to pay for it.

    I'm sure John will put his money where his mouth is and send several thousand dollars a year to his alma mater to help fund their shmortz programs.

  • ||

    Sure I will. And lots of people do. The football and basketball programs at most Division I schools will easily fund themselves and in some cases turn a nice profit back to the school.

  • sarcasmic||

    So why defend subsidizing them?

  • sarcasmic||

    Above you argued "if you don't like paying for shmortz, go to a different school", but that argument ignores all the tax funded subsidies that go to pay for shmortz programs.

    Would you be OK with eliminating all taxpayer subsidies for shmortz?

  • ||

    I am not arguing that they should be subsidized.

  • sarcasmic||

    By saying "don't go if you don't want to pay the fees" you are ignoring the subsidies from taxes.

  • ||

    But if the program makes money that is then turned back to the school, you wouldn't need the fees. And further, money is fungible. If the school got rid of that fee, they could just charge another fee on another name. As long as the program makes money, it is not subsidized.

  • sarcasmic||

    But if the program makes money that is then turned back to the school, you wouldn't need the fees.

    You're missing the part where staff and grounds come out of the tax subsidized general budget.

    Forget it.

  • ||

    Money is fungible sarcasmic.

  • Plaxico Benny||

    Stop distorting the argument with logic, you bigot!

  • Plaxico Benny||

    (@ sarcasmic)

  • ||

    "The football and basketball programs at most Division I schools will easily fund themselves and in some cases turn a nice profit back to the school."

    Au contraire, just checking the NCAA website,"Less than 7 percent of Division I athletics programs had positive net revenue between 2004 and 2010. In the Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS), only 22 of 120 schools showed positive net revenue for the 2010 fiscal year, eight more than in 2009."

  • ||

    Those numbers are misleading. The first number is overall athletic spending, which includes spending on the non revenue sports that I would eliminate. The second number is misleading for two reasons. First, "making money" is not always shown on the books. Second, that is one year. Just because you lose money one year doesn't mean you lose money every year or overall.

    And if they don't make money, then cancel them. If there are 22 or 30 schools that make money, good for them.

  • ||

    Some? Sure. Most? I doubt it very much, at least at current levels of bloat.

  • ||

    Then cut the bloat. That just means they spend too much not that they shouldn't spend at all.

  • CrackertyAssCracker||

    Hey, I'm all for getting rid of public schooling. Do that and the football will re-form all by itself. Til then don't get rid of the one part that actually brings me some joy in my life.

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    Getting rid of football would do more for education than school choice? I think that's unlikely, particularly when you compare Texas schools to other states' and correct for racial makeup.

  • ||

    they are just businesses run by the state. They still have to attract students don't they?

    "We lose money on every one, but we'll make it up in volume."

    -------

    There was a guy on Bloomberg this morning (a floor trader, I believe) who said, "Those Occupy Wall Street clowns are protesting in the wrong place; they should be outside the Bursar's office at wherever they went to college, demanding their money back."

  • Mike M.||

    Many of them ARE in fact demanding their money back!

    Of course they're not demanding it back from the university, but from the taxpayer.

  • ||

    "We lose money on every one, but we'll make it up in volume."

    "Superstraws, two dollars each."

    "Brett, how much does it cost to make one of your super straws?"

    "Two-fifty....oh...but I'm selling a lot of them.....ohhhhhhh."

  • ||

    For the 15th time. Slowly this time so maybe you understand

    GET RID OF THE MONEY LOSING SPORTS!!!

  • ||

    @John

    I have a better idea. Get rid of the subsidies, and let them keep whichever sports they want.

  • Serial Commentator||

    I wish I had the time to go to Stanford.

  • ||

    The most common reason stated from the school budget wonks I've read for not cutting athletics is, that every dollar you cut from the athletich department will cost you two in alumni contributions.

  • ChrisO||

    Problem is, the bulk of those donations go to fund...the sports programs.

    I'm an Oregon alumnus, and I enjoy watching the Ducks' football team now that they don't suck anymore. But I'll be the first to admit that the whole enterprise is rotten. Visiting the campus is a revelation. Beautiful new sports facilities all over, one or two new science buildings funded by a strong research program, and mostly the same old class buildings and dorms that were already decrepit and shitty when I started there 25 years ago.

  • ||

    So, Phil Knight should've prevented from giving his own money to build those facilities? AFAIK, most of the athletic departments have huge fund-raising apparati that pay for those buildings.

  • ChrisO||

    No, Phil Knight can send his money wherever he wants. I'm just saying that it is a shame as a non-sports alumnus of UO to see what's been done to the campus and what hasn't. Where is the huge fundraising apparatus to upgrade the rest of the campus? I'm just being a grumpy old man...

    UO is effectively Oregon's pro football team. I wish the NFL would let Phil Knight start an expansion team in Portland. Of course, I grew up a Redskins fan, so I would change my allegiance in any event...

  • ChrisO||

    Fun fact: the reason I never went to a UO football game in four years there was because noontime on Saturdays was way too early in the morning for me...

  • ||

    You mean you willingly passed up all the pageantry, all of the fanfare, all of the pomp and circumstance of big time NC2A college football?

  • ChrisO||

    I was a little too hungover for pomp and circumstance. LOL

  • A fan||

    Tailgate, baby!! Best hangover cure ever!!

  • Ted S.||

    Move the Vikings to Portland. It's not as if they're going to get a replacement for their shitty stadium whose roof falls down.

  • ChrisO||

    Even if Phil Knight was willing to pay ever last dime necessary for a functioning pro football stadium in PDX, the zoning and planning bullshit in that city would scare him away. He wouldn't live to see the stadium finished.

  • ||

    I ran track and x-country in college, and I can honestly say that it improved my college experience.

    That said, if a school is taxpayer-funded, their athletic program should be self-sufficient or the school should disclose how much tuition is being used to subsidize their athletic programs so potential students can weigh the cost vs benefit of the added tuition.

    Of course, get rid of Title IX, and more athletic departments would either be profit centers or would break even.

  • ||

    Of course, get rid of Title IX, and more athletic departments would either be profit centers or would break even.

    Cue MNG to proclaim, "THAT'S NOT FAIRRRR!"

  • ||

    even less fair: students of either sex at private unis getting sports programs, while the poor oppressed students at public unis go without. Talk about unfair!

  • ||

    Hey wylie! Speaking of unfair, there's that outstanding bill you keep dodging...

  • ||

    That's why I like you Groovus: any other medical professional would've sent that bill to the collection agency by now.

  • ||

    Hopefully, the bill was not for a consultation where Groovus peddled the tired ole nonsense that supplements are bad for you.

  • ||

    I thought Groovus was working on his human centipede project. Is wylie involved in that?

  • A fan||

    I sold a little herb to get by. Entrepreneurism should be state subsidized as well!

    Haha

  • Tank||

    One thing that needs to be considered is how athletic success/presence influences alumni giving. Sports is a way to keep alumni engaged. I'm not saying it's enough to tip the scales, but it should be factored in.

    Personally, I'm not sure why any college would fund anything other basketball and football, along with the women's sports needed to come into compliance with Title IX. Everything else should be a club sport. It works for rugby.

  • ||

    ^^This^^ Talk to any fund raiser about the value of sporting events to alumni giving. It may be crazy but it is reality.

  • Yeah||

    And "reality" trumps ethics. It's called pragmatism.

  • ||

    What ethics? Is it written in stone what a university can and cannot do? Stop infecting every thread with your stupidity. It is tiresome.

  • Yeah||

    "Tiresome" is calling people names when they point out the spuriousness of your argument. You do it every time. It demonstrates a decided lack of character.

  • John the Baptist||

    And John said, I baptize ye in the name of the Idiot, the Stupid, and the Moronic Spirit.

  • ||

    You didn't point out the speciousness of anything. There is nothing to say you couldn't start a university focused entirely on athletics. There is nothing sacred about "university" and nothing intrinsically wrong about athletics being a part of the experience.

  • Psychopaths are Pragmatists||

  • Montani Semper Liberi||

    I've got a family member who is the head of planning for a university with top 25 basketball and football programs who I've talked with about this topic, and according to them there is no significant effect of athletic success on alumni giving. I realize this is a sample size of one, but I'd think if there is an effect at any school, it would be one with highly visible programs. FWIW, I've also got another family member who has an entire department at the same school named after him because of multi-million dollar donations who to my knowledge never gave a dollar to athletics or had any interest in football or basketball.

  • Joe||

    Agreed. I was captain of our tennis club, and there's so much less admin and hoop-jumping, it's worth it.

  • Zeb||

    Personally, I have sworn never to give a cent to my alma mater because they spend money on stupid shit like sports facilities and ugly, useless new buildings. So it goes both ways.

    And if football and basketball are so great and self sustaining, then why shouldn't they be self supporting clubs too? They can still be associated with the school and have all of the alumni ra-ra bullshit and no one has to pay for anything they don't want to.

  • Clevelandite||

    I like rugby being used as an example. Everything should be more like rugby.

  • ||

    I don't actually hate sports. I played football and lacrosse in college, at a Division III school. No scholarships, no elaborate team facilities; we used the same weight room every other student used, ate in the same dining halls. If we lived on campus, it was in the regular dorms. The crowds at our games frequently numbered in the dozens (if the weather was good).

  • ||

    That is one way to run a school. The University of Chicago does it that way. And it seems to work quite well for them. I just don't think it has to be the only way.

  • ||

    That actually sounds like you had fun and gained character from the experience.

    What the hell happened to you?

  • A fan||

    At my school guys would pis while standing in the stands. Football was dropped a few years later.

  • Stop Funding Regulatory Lines||

    Stop funding abstract lines and demarcations that heavily regulate the Land on Mother Earth's surface. Privation property is a big-government Land enTitlement program whose goal is to restrict the free movement of free people.

    Officer, am I free to gambol about plain and forest?

  • ChrisO||

    Whatever college program you attended, we should eliminate that.

  • Stop Funding Regulatory Lines||

    U no likee critical thinking skills?

  • ChrisO||

    Good one!

  • ||

    I think if sports were truely profit making then place like university of Phoenix would be in college sports.

    I also question if pro sports make a traditional profit without tax money.

  • ||

    That is a good point. But the U of P has chosen to market itself in a different way. It is a different kind of school. They don't have traditional campuses or any way for their students to benefit from athletic programs. So it makes sense they don't do it.

    Look, they are bread and circuses. You may not like them, but they do serve a purpose.

  • ||

    they are bread and circuses

    Which made sense for Rome to provide, since the average Roman citizen was a subsistence farmer. Is the average American citizen so poor that he can't pay for his own circusbread?

  • ||

    People are people. Bread and circuses always serve a purpose.

  • ||

    I was not questioning the function, just the source of funding.

  • Bread and Circuses||

    They do serve a purpose. They keep the agricultural city-State going for a few more decades so the the hierarchical elite can keep the people distracted for sheering. It's better than riots over all the wealth flowing into higher, tighter, and righter hands.

  • A fan||

    Not exactly. Bread and circuses keep the public distracted, so the plutocracy can continue to milk the system. The system ain't to blame, it's the criminality of human nature. Your gamboling fools were having their squaws fucked raw while they were gamboling about.

  • Apostate Jew||

    I thought University of Phoenix was simply a successful enlargement of the "Famous Artists Correspondence Art School" scam with the farming of education subsidies thrown in for maximum profit.

  • ChrisO||

    Depends on the player salaries. To a degree, taxpayer dollars have helped propel the astronomical salaries that players in the big pro sports receive.

    Fifty years ago, pro sports teams were profitable playing in either their own privately owned stadiums or in public stadiums that teams had to lease under terms that were more favorable to the taxpayers, with no owner revenue carved out from skyboxes, concessions, parking fees etc.

    The difference was that players mostly received what would today be considered upper middle income salaries, and sometimes less. NFL players routinely worked second jobs in the off-season as late as the 1970s.

    The taxpayer subsidies allow team owners to run profligate operations that would have been considered crazy even 30 years ago.

  • ||

    NFL players routinely worked second jobs in the off-season as late as the 1970s.

    Man, I bet those job skills came in handy when their sports careers were over.

  • k2000k||

    What was that thing from baseketball?

    I miss the old days of sports when teams didn't move around and players were like indentured servants.

  • k2000k||

    and Im not being facetous but I kind of agree with that sentiment.

  • ChrisO||

    It was pretty common for those old-school NFL players to be successful in the business world once their playing careers were over. Not all of them, of course.

    The trade-off, of course, was that they couldn't spend their off-seasons training the way they do now. A good part of training camp every year was spent getting the players back in shape.

    I'm not saying we should go back to the old days, or even that eliminating taxpayer subsidies would require that. Pro sports are far more profitable now than they were 30-40 years ago. Most players would still be very highly paid even without subsidized stadiums/arenas. But the bottom line for the teams would be quite different. The NFL would probably be the least affected, since the bulk of its revenue these days comes from the national TV contracts.

  • ||

    if you choose a school based on their sports, you probably are among the many, many college students who shouldn't be in college.

    !!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • B Stein||

    I'm glad Mr. Hinkle recognizes that "some" university athletic programs turn a profit. But this is somewhat of an understatement in the case of my alma mater (Texas) which brings in over 100 million annually. Certainly, UT is the exception not the rule. However, I think Title IX is the real issue. Which, of course, makes sense. Government is ALWAYS at the root of the problem.

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    Texas athletics also gives money to the academic side. About $5 million a year and counting.

  • Ted S.||

    How much of that is because of the Longhorn Network which Texas doesn't have to share with the rest of the Big 12 (or whatever number they're going by these days)?

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    Texas was in the black long before the LHN. Third tier rights aren't shared in the SEC, either. Florida gets $10 million a year for theirs. Also, I didn't see KU sharing their third tier basketball revenue with the Big 12, but no one peeped about getting to keep their third tier revenue until Texas started making more from it than they did.

  • rather||

    and they screw with women in sports
    and they waste female taxpayer's dollars
    and the game bores me... unless they start playing naked football

  • A fan||

    naked football?

    That's like a lesbian convention - all sweaty fat bitches rolling around in the mud. Seen you there!

  • ||

    I see a lot of claims made about "money-making" and "money-losing" college sports, but I don't believe an honest accounting is available. Where does Team Spirit appear on a GAAP balance sheet?

    Would the Indianapolis Colts "make" money absent their publicly funded Pleasure Dome?

  • ||

    I see a lot of claims made about "money-making" and "money-losing" college sports, but I don't believe an honest accounting is available.

    You'll have a better chance of spinning straw into gold than finding an honest accounting of college sports, especially when public troughs are readily available.

  • k2000k||

    Good point, but what if the local populace in the area voted for said pleasure dome. Now I know it was probably a statewide vote so a bunch of suckers in the boonies would have to pay for it. But for example, I live in Seattle and if the citizens of that city, and only that area, voted for a stadium I wouldn't habe a problem with it. Unfortunately those votes are usually statewide, but then perhapes the same argument can be made again. I don't know though I can't tell the difference between a touchdowns and a singles.

  • ||

    What if only 51% of Seatllites voted for the stadium. Fuck the rest? Or, hey, if they don't like it, those 49% can just *jacks thumb* gitout.

    The authority of the gov't to arrest murderers derives from the fact that the overwhelming majority of citizens agree that murder is wrong. Therefore, the taxation of the citizenry for the purpose of policing is justified.

    The less-whelming the majority, the less justified in forcing the minority to comply.

    If I manage to ascend to God-Emperor before RC does, any issue that can't achieve at least 90% majority would be tossed out as a non-government issue. People will just have to handle it themselves, without the enforced-compliance of The State.

  • ||

    "at least 90% majority"

    On further thought, I'm not liking the possibilities there. Make it 100% agreement.

  • ||

    (and that whole screed ignores the idea that sports is not a valid function of government in the first place, which invalidates the hypothetical stadium vote.)

  • Kontra Dick Shun||

    Libertarian Statists hold two contradictory propositions simultaneously, as follows:

    • The agricultural city-STATE (civilization) is BAD.
    • The AGRICULTURAL CITY-state (CIVILIZATION) is GOOD.

    Their magic tool is the blank-out. ~Ayn Rand
    http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/evasion.html

  • Foghorn Leghorn||

    You gotta - I say, you gotta keep 'em on their toes. Toes, that is.

  • ||

    What the hell happened to you?

    I also spent a lot of time in the library, reading H L Mencken and (nonfiction) Samuel Clemens.

  • BigT||

    "The effort to educate the uneducable is hopeless. Schools for adults soon become kindergartens for adults. The pupils are quite unable to take in the education proper to their years. The gogues thus have to provide them with amusement, just as children of four are provided with amusement in kindergartens. The hope is that they will somehow learn to think as an accidental by-product of playing, but that hope is vain."

    H L Mencken

  • ||

    Louder!

  • Sheriff Bart||

    In Virginia, the universities don't use taxpayer money for things like stadium expansion or new athletic buildings. That is all privately donated.

  • ChrisO||

    That's true of most larger public universities. University of Oregon has done the same thing, now that they have sugar daddy Phil Knight to pay the bills for all that stuff. Pity that he doesn't direct some of that cash towards the decrepit academic facilities.

  • Montani Semper Liberi||

    Pretty much. People who give to athletics typically give only or almost entirely to athletics. There is not much overlap between big time athletics and big time academic donors.

  • ||

    There is not much overlap between big time athletics and big time academic donors.

    When there is, it can and often is Trojan horse, as the strings tied to an ideological axe play a very statist tune in a decidedly Marxist Key(nes).

  • ||

    That's all nice, but once you have a gigantic donor-funded sports complex, the school still has a hefty ongoing bill to keep that complex operating.

  • ||

    Good thing they sell things like tickets and merchandise to pay such bills.

  • Joe||

    The University of Florida doesn't have a Top 20 football program! The entire state of Florida doesn't have a Top 20 football program! I've been waiting to say that for years! Go Big Red!

  • ||

    Me too. God I hate Florida football.

  • ||

    Why? What did it ever do to you?

  • ||

    Well it did provide the fodder for the 1996 Fiesta Bowl epic ass kicking. So I guess it isn't all bad.

    Actually, it is the media that I dislike. I just tired of hearing about it.

    And it is sports. And what fun is sports if you can't irrationally hate the other guy?

  • Joe||

    It's odd, because often I really like the coaches (Urban Meyer, Mike Krzyzewski). College football has allowed me to understand nationalism, because getting emotionally invested in something over which I have no control or real world investment makes no sense, yet dominates my autumn Saturdays. It's people like us that realize we're carrying a pitchfork with a pot on our heads once we're half way over the moat.

  • Joe||

    When I was young my dad used to teach us kids that the only reason Florida State and Miami would win (this was in the early 90's) was because it was warm in Florida and they could practice all year round. Otherwise, Nebraska and Oklahoma would finish No. 1 every year. As far as recruits go, I suppose there's a little bit of truth to that.

  • ||

    And they got to play all of their games and their bowl games in good weather. The northern teams have to play in bad weather and build teams to win in bad weather. That is not always the best team on a perfect field in January in Florida. I wish the Florida teams would have had to come to Lincoln or Columbus in January to win a title sometime.

  • BigT||

    the SEC teams won't even play an away game in the North - at any time of year.

  • ||

    Florida has much better players, partially because a state with a lot of people has the weather and the culture, generally speaking, that favor athletics. I don't think the Florida schools are in any permanent decline, in any case, but part of the problem is that Florida high school players are much more heavily recruited out of state than they used to be.

  • EDG reppin' LBC||

    I'm an Ohio State fan, and generally a Big 10 fan. When I watch SEC games, I am blown away by how fast the athletes are. There must be something in the water down there. I think that football is moving away from big "cornfed" bruiser guys, and toward lighter, but way faster technique guys.

  • ||

    The move toward speed helps, I agree. We do tend to be more athletic down here, for whatever reason.

    The Big Ten has a fairly long history of picking up "skill" positions from down here. The problem they have, of course, is that it's hard to get enough with everyone else trying to do the same.

    Even within Florida, there's been some dilution by the rise of UCF and USF.

  • BigT||

    Big Ten teams have to play to win the in the mud and slop of October and November in the Midwest. Not so, the SEC teams. The balance is different, and the injuries to fast guys on a slick track are numerous.

  • ||

    It seems we are all ignoring the massive elephant in the room, and that would be the sizeable black population (ie descendants of slaves cruelly selected for physical activity) that the southern states have.

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    College baseball, yes. College football, not so much.

    Oklahoma and Nebraska would do jack in football without athletes from other states. Florida schools could do well with only Florida-born players.

  • ||

    That is true. But hey, it is a national market.

  • ||

    Tommie Frazier is from Bradenton, for instance.

  • Joe||

    Definitely, the walk-on's are local, but most everyone else is Texas/Florida/Ohio/California. Still, recruits from nice (read "warm") areas still tend to stay closer to home.

  • Spartacus||

    Hey, is it true what I've heard...that the "N" on the Nebraska helmet stands for "knowledge"?

  • Joe||

    It stands for "Norman Cob", as in the breed of horse, because that's how we get around town to buy twine and chase off White Indians. It hasn't worked on the Reason comment section.

  • ||

    Something tells me White Indian wouldn't last too long even on the tough streets of Lincoln.

  • ChrisO||

    The hunting and gathering around there's not as good as it used to be, now that the Private Property Extremists killed off all the bison. Guess he could go freegan.

  • Rob||

    I would like White Indian, Tony, Max, and that douche bag shrike to be the scout team that gets to scrimmage LSU. And no pads and helmets, either.

  • ||

    Is the average American citizen so poor that he can't pay for his own circusbread?

    Dude, is your teevee broken?

    Ninety nine per cent of them are!

  • ||

    I got rid of cableTV for a year. I have it again now, but I've really been a lot happier not-yelling at retarded commercials. Hooray for Netflix and DVDs!

  • Pudgeboy||

    ...I'd add, TIVO to that list. It's the best way to watch sports. No ads, no timeouts...

  • My Myself and I||

  • Matrix||

    #3 is UGA? Goooo Dawgs! Sic 'em! Woof woof woof woof!!

  • BigT||

    those are revenues. How about net? A recent SI article indicated that many schools LOSE money going to bowl games since the costs are so high.

  • ||

    Well, schools will say, students are not just brains on sticks; we are trying to develop the whole person. This would be a good argument for mandatory student participation in intramural sports or a music appreciation class. It is not a very strong argument for subsidizing field hockey away games.

    I was actually going to post the argument attributed to "schools" but I see Mr Hinkle got to it. His response is however flawed; apparently his complaint is about travel costs, but does he also oppose museum or conference trips for academic classes?

    Looks like I gave Hinkle too much credit, because shortly thereafter he writes

    First, this goes to the heart of what a university ought to do: educate students—not entertain them.

    as if he had never heard the argument he just responded to. Sports are not mere entertainment, especially for the participants.

    One free-market approach to deal with the womyns studies and religious ed class styrofoam would be to raise tuition but give discounts for students who take "important" classes (especially math classes! :) ) that the state has a legit interest in subsidizing.

  • ||

    Privatize student loans and make them dischargeable. Then lenders will have an incentive to see students get jobs after they graduate.

  • k2000k||

    Agreed Liberate. And while we are at it universities should change their employment metric. I have a friend studying law and he says their employment metric is a load of crap given that they include laywers who are now waiting tables and the like. The whole university system has turned into nothing more than a giant scam.

  • ||

    Absolutely. Then the lenders would be all over the colleges or they wouldn't loan money to their students. It would be a wonderful self correcting system. But it would make colleges accountable so will never happen.

  • Joe||

    I like Thomas Sowell's idea to lock in a salary-based payment rate and pay period to the loan, after which it's discharged, rather than just an interest rate adjusted for major. This would make loans more of a time-limited investment, with deferral only for graduate school. It would favor careers with higher starting salaries, which would also focus schools on real world training so that students would come out running. I'm sure there are problems with it, but I thought it was kinda interesting.

  • ||

    I like setting the rate to the major (and to grade performance, for that matter). Engineering, for instance, would be at the prime rate. Babylonian Matriarchal Sex Trade would be subprime. Price for risk.

  • ||

    Babylonian Matriarchal Sex Trade

    "The page "Babylonian Matriarchal Sex Trade" does not exist. You can ask for it to be created, but consider checking the search results below to see whether the topic is already covered."

    Dammit.

  • ||

    Well, it is somewhat obscure. Perhaps some PhD in the subject should take some time to promote it.

  • Joe||

    The program has been defunded due to tax cuts for the rich. However, if Herman KKKain is elected president, you'll know firsthand what that lifestyle is like as our women and children will be sold for $9.99 and the GOP puts "you afraid" back into "Euphrates".

  • ||

    Damn that Republican anti-intellectualism!

  • Joe||

    Correction: since it's "matriarchal" our *MEN* and children will be sold. So it's only half objectionable, though still unsettlingly hetero-normative.

  • ||

    Then lenders will have an incentive to see students get jobs after they graduate never give a loan to a student who doesn't have collateral.

    ftfy

    There's currently no law against making private, dischargeable loans to students, you know. They just don't make sense for the lender.

  • Colonel_Angus||

    All college sports should be intramural clubs, payed for by the participants, donations, and fundraising.

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    And TV contracts?

  • ||

    Public access.

  • ||

    What kind of fundraising do you expect the women's gymnastics team to do?

  • ||

    Why, Tulpa, that's positively . . . SugarFree-esque.

  • Colonel_Angus||

    Jello fights.

  • BigT||

    Private demonstrations at frats!

  • Jon||

    The author's use of the term "gawdawful" is mind-numbing stupid and also offensive to believers of the Lord.

  • ||

    Maybe he's making light of a different god than the one you believe in? I'd check before getting offended.

  • Gawd||

    I'm not really all that awful, though. Perhaps just a bit.

  • ||

    the more you know:

    Origin of GOD-AWFUL
    goddamned + awful
    First Known Use: 1878

  • Zeb||

    Shouldn't that be "believers of the Lawd"?

  • cOLONEL_aNGUS||

    SATANSATANSATANSANTA

  • pffttt....||

    Hinkle proves he was a pussy in HS who got shoved into lockers by jocks.

  • sauce||

    And why can't university athletics be run more like businesses? I don't think I've ever heard of taxpayers helping to fund pro sports stadiums. That 20 mill municipal bond I'm being asked to approve is just to upgrade my "civic center" because so many cultural events take place there and it would be a shame to lose it. I don't know why they just don't ask the semi-pro basketball and hockey teams playing there to chip in since most of the cultural events taking place there involve a ball or a puck.

  • np||

    man I can't believe the consequential arguments people make here. Where's the principle of paying only for what you want? The whole don't-attend-if-you-don't-like-sports is total BS when everyone is forced to subsidize it to some degree.

    I don't agree with Hinkle's arguments with what education should be about either. But unless it's 100% private with no federal or state money to universities or colleges at all (e.g. even if a stadium is built by donors, the school uses grant money, subsidized loans, etc to fund the programs themselves), then people do have a right to complain.

    Heck, even the issue that the vast majority operate in the red is missing the point. It's the simple fact that people's money are taken and spent where not everyone agrees, nor is equally beneficial to all, pure and simple. Like the programs? Great. Feel free to donate.

  • Gatorfan||

    I just want to point out that the University of Florida does not use taxpayer money for athletics (which the article fails to mention). The sports program is a separate entity (the University Athletic Association) and is run completely on revenue and donations. In fact, ever year the UAA donates money back to the University. Well run sports programs can be a boon for a University for both publicity and funding.

  • ||

    Here! Here! I couldn't agree more. My tax dollars paying for a bunch of steroid junkies playing grab-ass with each other. Pathetic!

  • jwgarcia82||

    I'm not understanding John's argument. If the sports programs he is so vigilantly defending pay for themselves, then he should have absolutely no problem with cutting tax subsidies right? I mean, if they pay for themselves, why do they need tax dollars for support? Let the programs that support themselves do what they want, and those that require tax dollars to survive get the axe. Is that not a reasonable solution to the problem?

  • eljaguar||

    If UT Austin and Texas A&M were both to stop funding their athletic departments, how many of their potential students would decide to go to OU instead? Probably about three, and that's a win-win since it would raise the average IQ of both Texas and Oklahoma.

  • ||

    The Greek ideal of education, which Western Civilization has professed to follow is mind, body, and spirit. If you do not support the athletics you are not supporting the body. Excellence in all things, including athletics. More should be spent on student body athletics and less on the collegiate teams, but we should not forget either. We are fat tubs of lard already, should we make it worse?

  • ||

    I am a citizen of the Commonwealth of Virginia, and I have to take exception with the contention made by Mr. Hinkle that Virginia doesn't get value from the money spent on college sports. Personally, I am a Slippery Rock U. of PA grad 88, but I was in Richmond during the VCU Final Four game and I can tell you that everyone in the city was having one of the best nights of their life, not just students. I haven't seen that many drunk people in Ft. Lauderdale during spring break or in Vegas. During football season, I get a little apprehensive when I here screaming and shit breaking at neighbor's houses Saturday afternoon until I remember that they are Tech fans. Does everything have to measurable by something with a fucking number attached to it?

  • Tincup||

    I’d hire a 3.5 gpa business grad who played College Volleyball before one who didn’t. I want people who know what hard work it takes to win and what to do when things aren’t going their way.

  • dean the dream||

    What advantage is it again please, that inter-collegiate sports brings to education? And isn't the the key to eliminating the pork and waste in the Title IX money-losers, in eliminating the other pork-barrel inter-collegiate plantations, (eh.. programs) as well? What virtues do we accrue in our culture by the subsidising very many hoggish and un-ethical owners, management, and staff that are rampant in the ranks of professional and inter-collegiate sports?

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement