Home > Education > Report Says Current Costs Make College Sports 'Unsustainable'

Report Says Current Costs Make College Sports 'Unsustainable'

Reader Comments
Back to article

Then the Title 4 issue will come up and the feminist will complain of gender discrimination when the schools decide to eliminate the non-revenue generating sports namely the female sprots.

truthbetold of GA 10:23AM October 14, 2011

i believe we spend too much on sports and not enough on education. what percentage of all students actually benefit from sports?look at the pros and how many pro athletes come from other countries ,after we spend billions training these kids.there should be a law that the pros not hire foreign athletes.the pro teams should pay for all sport activities in all schools,starting with high schools.the thing with our need to be the best team is costing far too much!where do 90% of the athletes end up after school?not on any pro teams!we seem to be going the way of the roman empire,they built large stadiums for the gladiators with the tax money,just as we are.they paid for the athlete to train ,like are .it just does not seem right that we can afford all this,but not healthcare for all people.please america wake up!

clarence clark of AZ 2:26PM January 24, 2010

Big time college sports are being run as private enterprises under the brand names of the colleges. These enterprises are protected under the tax code - contributions to the athletic department are considered charitable deductions (nonsense). Athletics should be part of the operating budget of the institution, not a separate enterprise. Coaches and athletics should not recieve any outside money. Let the universities decide all atheltic spending decisions.
And pay the athletes! Their participation deserves compensation far more than any on campus job. That there is so much money in the programs, and none for them (that is not under the table) breeds corruption.

Ned Ryerson of NJ 9:50AM October 30, 2009

1. Last year two Division 1 football players and a rugby player received 3 of the 20 Rhodes Scholarships.
2. There are brilliant athletes and some that aren't so smart.
3. Title 9 required equal opportunities for women. That was good.
4. But the costs of non-revenue sports are much too high with scholarships, coaches pay, recruiting expenses, extensive travel, etc.
5. We could offer far more sports for men and women if these expenses were drastically reduced.
6. Sixty years ago there were football and basketball scholarships, and a few track and baseball scholarships. Sports were supported by student fees.
7. Whether sports are educational depends on the coach. John Wooden was a master educator. There are many.
8. Today to make sure that women get the same number of scholarships as men, particularly football, women's crew (with three shells) gets about 30 scholarships which help to balance the 85 that men get for football. Meanwhile men's crew is often dropped.
9. Less money can provide many more sports if part time coaches are used, travel is reduced and scholarships are eliminated. But that would require a Supreme Court decision to shift the emphasis of the non-revenue sports.
--As a former college athlete and a 55 year coach, I hate to see the total college experience prostituted. Sports can be the most important part of the educational experience. But they must be intelligently administered.

Bob O'Connor of CA 12:19AM October 30, 2009

Seriously, how many kids have been convicted, arrested, or kicked-off the team in the last decade. The number approaches 100. How great for the University.

Will Scarlet of NY 9:13PM October 29, 2009

The Penn State football program pays the entire bill for all of the school's athletic dept. Not a single dollar of Pa. tax money goes to this dept. I'm sure Joe Paterno is paid well for his services, but how many know about the substantial amount of money he and his wife donated for a new wing on the school's library. You know: books, academic research,etc.

Bob Dickson of MD 6:21PM October 28, 2009

Agree with 1st poster. Colleges were supposed to be Institutions of HIGHER LEARNING. They have devolved into sports showcases, where "student athlete" is an oxymoron. Athletes getting full rides for what? throwing a ball? hitting a ball? Meanwhile, the future engineer, doctor, lawyer, architect, scientist, etc gets a full slab of student loans! Shows where this country's priorities are. Additionally, not only do they subsidize them for their non-intellectual pursuits at these Institutions of Higher Learning, but they even do it when they come from wealthy families & are able to pay. And, these kids start out backward, but yet ahead, in the admissions process itself. Athletes are recruited, then apply. Those future einsteins have to apply, then compete to get their paperwork looked at from thousands of apps! Then, we know their criteria is dumbed down. A 700 to be eligible on the SAT, a test of 2400 possible, with the first 200 spotted for writing your name???? and they cannot even do that! Wasn't it FSU athletes who were found to read at Grade 2 recently? Yes, second grade. At college. Says it all, right there....

kathy of IL 5:07PM October 28, 2009

College is supposed to be about educating students in preparation for the real world.
College sports is little more than a semi-pro farm league for the pros - draining time, energy, resources and focus from real academic pursuits. Small wonder we have to bring people in to fill high tech and research positions because we don't have enough trained Americans. These are highly paid jobs at a time when many are unemployed or underemployed.
Calculate the number of hours spent by all the athletes, students and faculty nationwide just on football - it staggers the imagination. Think of all the time spent on cheerleaders, rally meetings, baton twirlers, flag twirlers, marching bands, Think of all the gas to fuel busses, power to light fields, gas to get cars to stadiums, fertilizers used to manicure large fields, uniforms, medical staff, specialized field houses, special tutors for players with little time to study, coaches making millions of $$$......BIG BUSINESS.
Who loses out in the end? Students - particularly student athletes. They learn an I formation, but how many will go into the pros? How many more will not - who have neglected their studies?
I believe in intramural sports - I participated in many during my education. Fun, builds character, teaches teamwork, and promotes good health. If the pros want athletes - they should provide their own farm system. Olympic athletes train at universities, but it is not big business.
Colleges need to get back to teaching academics, and leave sport as a minor element. Millions of fans and billions of dollars are the prizes schools aim for - often sacxrificing weak teams against powerhouses just to get the tv revenues.
I wouldn't mind if the whole thing slowed down. Maybe our college graduates would be able to find England on a map if it did....

Dorfy of SC 10:23AM October 27, 2009

...to see administrators wanting to take away yet more opportunities for college students.
I tell you what is really "unsustainable"; college administration.
These leeches suck dry the tax payers (at public universities) and the alumni (and both public and private institution) with their high salaries, misplaced priorities (how many new buildings did you put up this decade? How many academic programs did you cut? How many tenured positions did you slash in favor of adjuncts?), and rampant cronyism.
Oh sure, it is easy to scapegoat the handful of high salaried coaches at the small minority of universities that feature big time revenue sports, but the reality is athletics in under seige at all levels of competition, especially at smaller institutions who are often not paying their coaches what an adjunct prof makes.
It is such a scam, and a self perpetuating one to boot. First you have the careerist administrator wannabe, who knows the best way to parlay up from Podunk U. to a bigger and better institution is to divert resources away from unsexy things (like education) in favor of the splashy, be it an unneeded new building or some "international initiative" that will require some "working" trips to Europe or Asia to "sort things out". And what happens if resistence is met to these efforts? Well, here comes an "accrediting" agency (also made up of administrative types - what are the chances?) who declares the university simply cannot go on without an expensive new building....which is what they wanted for the resume anyway.
The people never thought of through this whole process are the students whose experience becomes ever shallower because there is simply less substance for them to engage with, be it academics, arts or athletics.

George Richards of MN 10:43PM October 26, 2009