Alabama tracking students' locations to penalize them for leaving games early

Of course that is bizarre.

It is also bizarre to make a claim about "better run" countries where people just walk home instead of other transport methods

Edit: You seem to be having a conversation with yourself and making points that no one is arguing with. Maybe try replying to what people say instead of forming a different argument and then attacking that.

The statement was scoped to NCAA Division 1 schools, which I imagine all have profitable football programs. However most of those also happen to be top-tier academic and research schools as well (there are of course exceptions), so I'm comfortable scoping the conversation to those schools.

The university I went to is in the top 20 (top 8 when I went)(this is just for context not to start an argument about rankings). The school is also in the top 20 in endowments.

When I was there they did an analysis of alumni donations. One thing they found out was that if you did 2 or more activities in high school you were likely to do 1 or more activities in college. (these numbers are ballpark) If did ANY activities in college you were around 60% more likely to donate to the school. If you did NO activities and just took class you were only 20% likely to donate. If you did MORE activities you were even more likely to donate. The amount of your donation was related heavily to your income and found to be an independent function from your activities.

Thus the school decided that recruiting multi-sport atheletes to play Division 3 sports (which we were) was revenue positive for running an athletic department. Their goal was to provide a positive feeling at all the sports so that everyone felt good about their experience. So the school got very into (even to the chancellor level) attempting to be on par with stanford's numbers in the Sears Trophy (now the ncaa directors cup) for most National Championships in a year. Which means you have to be good at pretty much everything, golf (m&w), tennis (m&w), swimming (m&w), volleyball (w), football, basketball (m&w), etc. And that's what they did.

I'm not saying this is the only reason they did what they did, they were very genuine about providing great experiences for the student athletes as they should if they're doing their jobs.

Anyway the overall point is that some schools also focus on alumni donations which ARE driven by school loalty, which are driven by sports. One could consider people buying school athletic merch as a form of alumni donation.

I'm not explaining or excusing why college sports it the big business it is in D1 as it is. I've got problems with that as well, but mainly I think the schools should be required to provide a real education for the players at ANY time in their life post graduation and some kind of revenue sharing.

A lot of students don't really get a free ride. They get a free ride to be on the team, like an unpaid internship. The realities of a D1 team is that, depending on the school and the player, barely go to school.

In D1 the priority is Sports, Academics. I played in D3 where the priority is Academics, Sports. We calculated we spent at least 800 hours per season on the sport. About 3000 hours over 4 years. D1 sports is more like 2000+ hours per season (aka a full job). Imagine how well you'd do at a full time uni if you were working 8 hours a day in construction at the same time. And that's if the school prioritizes you playing sports.

Personally I think they should be allowed to get a education benefit that grants them one free year of classes for every year of sports played for use at any time in their lives post sports. That way when they end the sports dream they can get the education they paid for by working.

>it's plain to see that football itself has nothing to do with education, except insofar as it's an activity that many students enjoy

Sports are part of a traditional old-school liberal arts education. That is why the Ivy League schools have some of the largest athletic departments in the country even though they don't generate revenue anywhere close to schools like Alabama or Ohio State. It is really no different than a school having a music or a theater program. Alabama just so happens to be the Juilliard of football. There are certainly some schools that shouldn't be spending what they do on their athletic department, but the idea that they need to generate a profit is just as flawed as expecting a public school's theater department to turn a profit. That said, there is no question that Alabama makes a solid profit on their football team.

Also the baseball industry is run differently because minor league baseball exists. There is not much of a minor league system in either basketball or football that provides a well defined development path for high school athletes. Both the NBA, NFL, and various independent organizations have tried developing them over the years, but college athletics is still the primary route for all American born professional basketball and football players. Universities and the NCAA are just taking advantage of that market need for minor league sports.