look guys, when nearly every single player in a mature market is doing the same thing, its a good bet that what they're doing is good for business. instead of screaming about it, maybe we should try to understand.
[deleted]
Nearly All US Universities Lose Money on Sports
61–70 of 74 posts
Re: Nearly All US Universities Lose Money on Sports
#62Earlier quoted context omitted.
> No one is saying athletics have no place in university. burgerbrain seems to be saying this, which is what I responded to. > When those subjects which tie into academics better than athletics. Tie in differently, not better. There are many ways to learn and many lessons to be learned. Drama, debate, music, newspaper, and sports, among others, are all different paths to learn those lessons. I am not justifying the l…
"> No one is saying athletics have no place in university. burgerbrain seems to be saying this" Absolutely incorrect. I merely believe they should not receive disproportionate funding, compared to other non-academic clubs; and assert that like other non-academic clubs, they should play absolutely no role in acceptance. "Tie in differently, not better" BULLSHIT. Journalism (newspaper club) is a respected academic stud…
Please keep this respectful. I happen to agree with you but there's way too much virulence running through this post (and much of this thread, IMHO).
Re: Nearly All US Universities Lose Money on Sports
#63Earlier quoted context omitted.
Were the Japanese forced into submission by a great football match?
More than they were by homework sets. Academic research certainly played a role in winning the second world war. I'd say that quality leadership played an even bigger role. Cadets and Midshipmen at our service academies have always been required to participate in athletics because team sports develop leadership, teamwork, and tactical and strategic thinking (in the '30s through the '60s, the service academies were po…
As far as 26 July '45, the Japanese refused to surrender. The guys that forced Japan in to submission were Little Boy and Fat Man and they had an academic background.
The only leadership required from the 'sport trained' generals was choosing which city had the most juicy civilians.
Re: Nearly All US Universities Lose Money on Sports
#64Did anyone actually read the article and his source?!? The article's author, Gregg Easterbrook, appears to have misread the NCAA report that supports his main thesis.
Here is the key statement from Easterbrook's article: "Recently the NCAA reported that only 14 Division I-A programs clear a profit, while no college or university in the United States has an athletic department that is financially self-sustaining. Nobody in Division I -- not Alabama, not Auburn, not Oklahoma, nobody -- has an athletic department that pays its own way. "
In this quote he makes reference to this NCAA report: http://www.ncaapublications.com/productdownloads/REV_EXP_201...
Apparently, he got that statement from the page 8 of the report, where there is a summary of findings. Here is the statement: "A total of 14 athletics programs in the FBS reported positive net revenues for the 2009 fiscal year, which represents a decrease from the 25 reported in 2008. The gap between the “profitable” programs and the remainder continued to grow, however a bit more slowly. (3.5)"
Anyone notice the mistake he made?
Revenue is the _input_ side of the ledger. Profit is the revenue minus expenses.
The claim in the NCAA report is that only 14 schools had a net increase in revenue (year over year).
It does not claim that only 14 schools were profitable!!!
This can be further confirmed by using the NCAA's own financial database:
http://www2.indystar.com/NCAA_financial_reports/
Univ of Mich had a net profit of $17mil Univ of Texas had a net profit of $7mil Auburn Uni. had a new profit of $121k Univ of Alabama (Roll Tide) reported a neglible loss for 2010, but I suspect this is an anamoly (big capital improvement plans just completed--new stadium expansion etc.)
Note where most of the profit comes from: football! Also note that typically the men's programs (football and basketball) make huge profits which cover the losses for women's and other programs.
Re: Nearly All US Universities Lose Money on Sports
#65Earlier quoted context omitted.
More than they were by homework sets. Academic research certainly played a role in winning the second world war. I'd say that quality leadership played an even bigger role. Cadets and Midshipmen at our service academies have always been required to participate in athletics because team sports develop leadership, teamwork, and tactical and strategic thinking (in the '30s through the '60s, the service academies were po…
As far as 26 July '45, the Japanese refused to surrender. The guys that forced Japan in to submission were Little Boy and Fat Man and they had an academic background. The only leadership required from the 'sport trained' generals was choosing which city had the most juicy civilians.
The "only" leadership required to use Little Boy and Fat Man was fighting our way across the world's biggest ocean to get into range to use them. To accomplish the same task, academics would have needed another couple of decades (and a boat-load of stolen German scientists) to invent the ICBM.
Nukes certainly ended the war earlier, and I believe they saved tens if not hundreds of thousands of lives on both sides, but they didn't create victory. Victory was already a foregone conclusion by the time we used them--they just accelerated it and lowered the cost dramatically.
Re: Nearly All US Universities Lose Money on Sports
#66Earlier quoted context omitted.
In college I took a course called "Physics of Alpine Skiing." A manufacturing engineering professor taught the course. He was a big ski racer in his younger days. While searching for a college major, and generally just drifting along, a mentor at his school explained to him that skiing is machining. This got the professor interested in manufacturing engineering. The professor ended up having a successful collegiate s…
because anecdotes trump data
Please, I never insinuated that. burgerbrain said sports have no intellectual value and don't belong on campus.
I gave a concrete example of how they did help. That is all.
There is a lot of athlete-hating in this thread.
Re: Nearly All US Universities Lose Money on Sports
#67Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not every lesson or piece of information can be learned from a book or in a classroom. Good luck getting soft skills there. Real learning occurs while playing sports. Soft skills, discipline, teamwork, personal fitness, and long-time dedication are just a few areas where sports help the whole person.
If real learning occurs while playing sports, then why isn't every student at a university allowed on a sports team? If it's so essential to education, then it should be part of the curriculum. And are soft skills, discipline, teamwork, and long-term dedication not things that people learn running clubs, competing at quiz bowl, going hiking, hacking software in their free time? Then why is there such disproportionate…
Not everyone can be on the 12 person, premier D-I basketball team. However, I am unaware of any university that doesn't allow pickup games or club teams by all people.
No one in this entire thread has advocated disproportionate funding for sports. No one. Not once. So that argument is just grasping at something that doesn't exist.
Yes, soft skills + the other skills can be learned with running, quiz bowl, hiking, etc., but not everyone wants to do those things. Why should a swimmer be denied enjoyment because his favorite activity involves physical activity?
I am not denying that clubs get the short end of the straw regarding funding. I was on both sides of the table, playing on large teams and being in small clubs. Once again, no one is advocating this.
Re: Nearly All US Universities Lose Money on Sports
#68Earlier quoted context omitted.
In college I took a course called "Physics of Alpine Skiing." A manufacturing engineering professor taught the course. He was a big ski racer in his younger days. While searching for a college major, and generally just drifting along, a mentor at his school explained to him that skiing is machining. This got the professor interested in manufacturing engineering. The professor ended up having a successful collegiate s…
"In college I took a course..." Key part of your post. American Football is not a course, and contains no intellectual content. Pretending otherwise just makes you look a fool.
You are probably right.
Learning how to organize a team of people with varying skills and abilities to come together, set a plan, execute on it repeatedly, and then repeat that day in and day out over 4 years through countless types of adversity and unexpected events while living in close quarters and changing as people over time has no value on the job.
/sarcasm
Re: Nearly All US Universities Lose Money on Sports
#69Earlier quoted context omitted.
I will never understand what quality education and sports have in common. Ever seen 50,000 alumni show up on campus for a theoretical physics conference?
Excellent point. People showing up to a school for non-academic reasons clearly provide an academic benefit... Not. I also haven't seen a theoretical physics conference gather dozens students late on a Friday night, but that doesn't mean kegs are good for education.
What's your plan for keeping a 75 year old man interest in his alma mater?
Re: Nearly All US Universities Lose Money on Sports
#70Colleges are only partially there for academics. All in all they exist to prepare you for "the real world" and to be a productive part of society. Certainly you can go to college and not socialize and not watch/play any sports and focus only on preparing for your career in academia. That's a choice. However, most people gain a lot more out of their college experience outside of the classroom. I was a student-athlete in the ACC and I certainly gained a lot more preparation for life after school from my experience as an athlete than as a student. To say sports aren't important in college is simply naive. As a matter of fact, to the poster that said "that doesn't mean kegs are good for education" I'll play devil's advocate and say that there is a ton of education that comes out of socializing and partying. It helps you become a lot more comfortable in social settings. In turn this helps you in other facets of your future career.
tldr; IMO, out-of-class activities during college are just as important if not more important than the in class education.