<p>Besides the direct profit or loss there is the value of all the exposure on TV if you are a national power. What is the value to USC of all the tv it gets? One shot of the song girls on the sidelines is good for 10 apps.</p>
<p>Exactly! Big time sports, alcohol-soaked tailgate parties before and after the games, and some sexy cheerleaders–those are the kind of images which will attract big numbers of the right type of students.</p>
<p>Hey, with b-ball, the same strategy worked for Georgetown and Duke, too.</p>
<p>
UCSD is also voting on a referendum that would increase fees on all students so they can dole out $500 to each athlete (don’t know their definition of who wold be entitled). One problem is that very few students ever vote in these measures and I’m sure those that do are heavily skewed by the hoopla of the hawkers/activist types on their student gathering area. As with all other items at colleges when they say ‘the students voted in favor’ they could be talking about the skewed 10-20% who actually bothered to vote. Hopefully no firm decisions will be made based on the student vote unless it’s a majority who vote.</p>
<p>“Exactly! Big time sports, alcohol-soaked tailgate parties before and after the games, and some sexy cheerleaders–those are the kind of images which will attract big numbers of the right type of students.”</p>
<p>Better than attracting the pocket-protector wearing nose pickers.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Say what you will, but I have been to the above-described events, and they are FUN! Let’s not discount the value of fun in education (and in life). Most of my memories of college revolve around the fun I had, and not about the courses I took.</p>
<p>“right type of students” is an awfully arrogant, elitist statement. </p>
<p>What about Emeke Okafor who speaks several languages and entered UConn as a sophomore academically due to the large number of A.P. courses and exams he completed successfully. He graduated in three years with a double major. (Finance and economics if I’m not mistaken)</p>
<p>How about Sam Hollenbach (QB Maryland) who will graduate this spring with a degree in Mechanical Engineering from one of the top Engineering Schools in the nation? </p>
<p>Oh, and then of course there’s Mike Mussina who graduated from Stanford four years (Economics) while pitching the Cardinal to a National Championship.</p>
<p>Who in their right minds would want to attract students like these? Clearly the “wrong type”</p>
<p>And we all know the students at Ivy schools spend all their time reading and debating the big questions. Or drinking and playing mean games of poker.</p>
<p>I have been following this thread and I am really surprised at the near complete lack of comment so far on the benefits of athletics for women at colleges, D1, D2, or D3. I buy into the life lessons that sports provides about work ethic, determination, persistence, strategic thinking, building self confidence, teamwork, etc. These lessons are lifelong and have great application in so many parts of one’s life. Historically, these lessons were the exclusive domain of men, but Title IX has thankfully changed all of that to encourage women to get out and start playing the games (literally). I am very sorry for the sometimes negative consequences that Title IX has had for mens sports (that was never the intent and in many cases shouldn’t have happened), but the benefits to women are HUGE. For that alone, I believe that college athletics is a very good thing.</p>
<p>
I guess the real question is not whether it benefits some people or not (it clearly benefits some but clearly not all) but rather, what’s it worth - i.e. how much should be spent to subsidize these activities? If you had to pay an extra $1K per year to pay for the athletics (not including fitness centers and intramural sports) that you had no chance to participate in because you’re not enough of an athlete to be accepted, is it worth it to you? Is it worth it so that you can go watch an occasional football game (that you have to buy a ticket for)? Sure, there are some schools with big teams that may bring in some profit (as opposed to just revenue) but I doubt this applies to most schools.</p>
<p>Should I have to pay for the building of dorms if I live off-campus?</p>
<p>What about the construction of buildings and classrooms not related to my major?</p>
<p>and so on.</p>
<p>Everyone pays equally.</p>
<p>“If you had to pay an extra $1K per year to pay for the athletics (not including fitness centers and intramural sports) that you had no chance to participate in because you’re not enough of an athlete to be accepted, is it worth it to you?”</p>
<p>There are lots of things at a university that some students don’t get to participate in because they’re not good enough. </p>
<p>Is it fair that an honors student takes the same gen ed classes as a regular student, but gets a 1 to 18 teacher student ratio instead of 1 to 200?<br>
Another example- a high school takes out a million dollar loan to put in a state of the art fine arts auditorium. My son will never perform in that auditorium, or attend a play or concert there. But part of our facilities fee will go toward it. </p>
<p>I think this just goes back to what people personally prefer or use. I don’t understand, though, the resentment that some people have toward athletics.</p>
<p>Whether D1 or D3, my son did not want to go to a college without varsity sports. I’m sure plenty of other students out there are like him. Which brings up an interesting scenario. What effect does everyone think that eliminating all varsity sports from, say half of all colleges would have? I’m purely speculating, but I think overall it would draw interest down. I’m not convinced that the numbers of students who DON’T want football, basketball, whatever, would make up for the numbers of students who do.</p>
<p>The OP seemed concerned about the value of any organized sports. I certainly don’t feel that way. I would like to see a much higher emphasis on sports participation. I agree with many of the comments about sports improving physical fitness and health and helping to develop teamwork and other skills. What I do object to are the big time spectator sports. I see no reason for $50 and $100 million/year programs. There may be a small number of scholar athletes but for the big programs those individuals are rare. The emphasis on winning and the level of competition for the big sports programs requires near full time training and dedication.</p>
<p>I agree, edad-
and I think it’s a huge plus when schools can offer students a decent choice of club and intramural sports.</p>
<p>The big-time programs provide a base for the alumni to stay connected to the schools and enjoy the association. Weekly parties for alums are built around sporting events. Even far from the campus.</p>
<p>I remember going to a sportsbar for lunch last fall in Richmond, Va and the place was packed with alumni of all ages rooting for schools from all over the country. Places like Wisconsin, Michigan,Texas, Iowa State, California, Arizona State were all represented. Very surprising scene and quite a testimony to how big-time college football can pull people together and keep one in touch with their school.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Gee edad,</p>
<p>Imagine a world with no Rose Bowl, National Championship or March Madness…I just can’t do it!</p>
<p>BAY - I agree - we would have NO entertainment at all 
- Right now it is Bean Pot time :)</p>
<p>Another former player ignores the stereotypes.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=561718[/url]”>http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=561718</a></p>
<p>It really comes down to - them that does and them that doesn’t.</p>
<p>Them that does - like/love sports and feel it is worth it to participate in college sports - even if as an observer - and who maybe don’t like the other things - like for example - the arts/drama/theater, etc…</p>
<p>Them that doesn’t - like sports and feel it is NOT worth it to participate in college sports - even if as an observer - and who maybe love the other things - like for example - the arts/drama/theater, etc…</p>
<p>It is an argument that will go on for the eons - and both sides have very valid arguments over who is right :D</p>