(01-23-2018 08:20 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  

(01-23-2018 07:24 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-23-2018 06:23 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  Even without it, there's plenty of other non-athletic entities covered in a typical college's cost of attendance that not everyone uses. There are things in this city that I never use that taxpayers have to pay for. I do go to the library but many don't and don't need to in the internet age where you can order pretty much anything or in the era of bookstores and even bigger libraries at places like universities.

It comes with the territory. There's plenty of things none of us use that we pay for. Why should you pay the school district tax if you have no kids? Why pay for public parks department if you don't ever go to the park?

You keep missing the point about 'mission'. All of those things are a valid part of the missions of those entities. Football at a university isn't, so the "well, we help pay for X even though we don't use it" doesn't wash.

And you keep missing the point about what students want. They like amenities colleges have to offer, including fitness centers, housing and (high level) intercollegiate athletics. Some go to certain schools very much for it and if you didn't know that going in, it's on you. If there was enough resistance to it, enough students would vote things down.

I haven't missed that point, I've explained why the students who want football should have it, at their own expense not anyone else's. If football doesn't have enough support to exist that way, then that means it doesn't have enough support to be viable on that campus.

And I've also explained the problems with voting. Heck, in the example given earlier this thread, the student vote was 'purely advisory', admins could still impose the proposed fee if they wanted. That's just for starters.