(01-22-2018 09:29 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  

(01-22-2018 09:11 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-22-2018 06:23 PM)Steve1981 Wrote:  The athletic fee argument about not going to any sports events is the same as the business major paying fees for new science labs. Almost no student utilizes ever thing they are paying fees for. It use to be a lot worst at UMass, because tuition went back to the state's general fund, but fees stayed at the university. It seemed like we were paying a fee for every new building.

It's not the same, because a science lab is clearly a component of the academic mission, whereas the football team isn't. It's therefore reasonable to expect all students, even those whose major will never bring them to the Science building, to kick in for the former. But not the latter.

Football or any other intercollegiate sport is precisely the kind of peripheral/tangential activity that should be paid for with user fees.

But it's something that brings people to colleges and amenities they enjoy. It's no different than a publicly financed sports stadium or even just a public park or pool.

If the students who show up at a football or hoops game enjoy it, then they should be the ones who pay for it, not the ones who don't.

When I was at USF, we didn't have football, but we had basketball and I loved watching our hoops team, even though we often weren't very good. I was more than happy to pay for tickets and a fee to support it, but disagreed that those students with no interest in hoops should have to as well.

And IMO, publicly financed sports stadiums for privately owned teams are dead wrong too.