Not that the upper echelon universities will want to, but I wonder with the amount subsidies that colleges give to the athletics programs if some universities would be better off turning over the athletics programs to a non-profit association.
In a more private/public relationship, my thought would be to have the colleges sell their athletic facilities to an association whereby the college still owns the land itself, but leases it to the association.
In return, the association owns the facilities, pays the bills for running the facility, employees the coaches, provides the insurance to athletes and collects all revenue. The association would handle and cover all travel costs and could even provide a stipend for each athlete from the net profit.

If there is a need to build, expand or upgrade facilities, the association will do all that under their corporation. There would be no need for the university to raise $$, or if a public college, to ask taxpayers or state budget committees to give money for facilities.

This can help the university focus more on the education side and student side of things by getting money for education buildings, faculty salaries, or student services. The university can focus the student fees on an activity center for all students, or building intramural fields and programs.

The university can also request a 10% cut or so of the revenues to be put into their endowment.

Universities have broad missions and that includes Athletics.

(07-16-2018 10:38 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  Not that the upper echelon universities will want to, but I wonder with the amount subsidies that colleges give to the athletics programs if some universities would be better off turning over the athletics programs to a non-profit association.
In a more private/public relationship, my thought would be to have the colleges sell their athletic facilities to an association whereby the college still owns the land itself, but leases it to the association.
In return, the association owns the facilities, pays the bills for running the facility, employees the coaches, provides the insurance to athletes and collects all revenue. The association would handle and cover all travel costs and could even provide a stipend for each athlete from the net profit.

If there is a need to build, expand or upgrade facilities, the association will do all that under their corporation. There would be no need for the university to raise $$, or if a public college, to ask taxpayers or state budget committees to give money for facilities.

This can help the university focus more on the education side and student side of things by getting money for education buildings, faculty salaries, or student services. The university can focus the student fees on an activity center for all students, or building intramural fields and programs.

The university can also request a 10% cut or so of the revenues to be put into their endowment.

If pay-to-play came about, yeah I could see some schools signing agreements to let an investor use their facilities and intellectual property for a fee to run football.

Chatting with a scout at an AState practice after we opened our indoor practice facility he mentioned that facilities of that caliber were unusual in the NFL because players were really only interested in the numbers on the check.

It would certainly end the facilities arms race for the most part.

(07-16-2018 10:45 AM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  Universities have broad missions and that includes Athletics.

Intramural athletics yes, because all students can participate in that.

LSU has the right model - for intercollegiate athletics, it's a separate entity with zero student/academic side funding, in fact the athletics department is required to pay the university $10m per year. After all, without "LSU" on the helmets and such the athletic teams would draw zero interest. So basically the athletics 'side' pays for the use of the school colors, logo, branding, etc.

LSU gets many things wrong, but they get this right.

(07-16-2018 06:18 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-16-2018 10:45 AM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  Universities have broad missions and that includes Athletics.

Intramural athletics yes, because all students can participate in that.

Anyone can tryout for a varsity team as well. But in the same vein that I can't make the band because I don't play an instrument, a poor athlete won't make the varsity team if they don't have the skill.

(07-16-2018 06:18 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  LSU has the right model - for intercollegiate athletics, it's a separate entity with zero student/academic side funding, in fact the athletics department is required to pay the university $10m per year. After all, without "LSU" on the helmets and such the athletic teams would draw zero interest. So basically the athletics 'side' pays for the use of the school colors, logo, branding, etc.

Athletics are the front porch of every Division One university and few if any, can afford the luxury of the LSU model. Selling out Athletics to a non-profit is not the answer for the vast majority of ADs at any level.

It's a non-starter. There simply isn't enough revenue.

(07-16-2018 06:51 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(07-16-2018 06:18 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-16-2018 10:45 AM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  Universities have broad missions and that includes Athletics.

Intramural athletics yes, because all students can participate in that.

Anyone can tryout for a varsity team as well. But in the same vein that I can't make the band because I don't play an instrument, a poor athlete won't make the varsity team if they don't have the skill.

(07-16-2018 06:18 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  LSU has the right model - for intercollegiate athletics, it's a separate entity with zero student/academic side funding, in fact the athletics department is required to pay the university $10m per year. After all, without "LSU" on the helmets and such the athletic teams would draw zero interest. So basically the athletics 'side' pays for the use of the school colors, logo, branding, etc.

Athletics are the front porch of every Division One university and few if any, can afford the luxury of the LSU model. Selling out Athletics to a non-profit is not the answer for the vast majority of ADs at any level.

It's a non-starter. There simply isn't enough revenue.

A varsity team should exist at the same way as in high school - doesn't cost much extra money, the gym teacher gets paid a little more to coach hoops or football. Unless of course the school can afford more via revenue generation.

As for revenue - if athletics can't generate enough to pay its bills, then that's proof that the demand isn't there, the university community doesn't want it that bad.

Athletics should have to scale back, live within is means, to whatever level can actually be paid for via direct user fees - ticket purchases, athletic donations, etc. Otherwise it's a welfare program for elite athletes.

(07-16-2018 07:55 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  A varsity team should exist at the same way as in high school - doesn't cost much extra money, the gym teacher gets paid a little more to coach hoops or football. Unless of course the school can afford more via revenue generation.

I think you would find that this is a decided unpopular opinion with universities, students, and the general American population at large.

(07-16-2018 07:55 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  As for revenue - if athletics can't generate enough to pay its bills, then that's proof that the demand isn't there, the university community doesn't want it that bad.

Do you hold the Chemistry Department to the same standards? The Office of Diversity? The landscaping crew?

(07-16-2018 07:55 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Otherwise it's a welfare program for elite athletes.

Otherwise known as scholarships, of which many people receive across this country for various skills to include academic prowess, artistic talent, and athletic skills.

Besides, you would be surprised just how many student athletes pay their own way just like other students in college.

(07-17-2018 07:34 AM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(07-16-2018 07:55 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  [quote='quo vadis' pid='15387042' dateline='1531788955']
As for revenue - if athletics can't generate enough to pay its bills, then that's proof that the demand isn't there, the university community doesn't want it that bad.

Do you hold the Chemistry Department to the same standards? The Office of Diversity? The landscaping crew?

No. The Chemistry Department is an academic department, and thus a legitimate function of a university. It should be subsidized. Though I will say in some states, that is changing. E.g., here in Louisiana, the legislature passed a rule about the financial viability of departments and majors. That is, if enrollment in a department or major, like chemistry, falls below the level needed to generate the revenue to pay for itself over a three-year time period, the program will be cut. We lost our Economics major that way a couple years ago. I think that is terrible, but it is an idea taking hold in budget-tight times. Landscaping is maintenance, thus necessary as well.

But *intercollegiate* athletics is in no way shape or form part of the legitimate core mission of any university. It isn't part of the Socratic mind/body/spirit of a university (intramural athletics and physical education are, because all students can participate in them). It should therefore be on a strict pay-as-you-go basis. It's an amenity, a tangential activity. LSU funds it the correct way.

(07-16-2018 07:55 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Otherwise it's a welfare program for elite athletes.

Otherwise known as scholarships, of which many people receive across this country for various skills to include academic prowess, artistic talent, and athletic skills.

Difference is, an "athletic scholarship" is an oxymoron. Art and academics are part and parcel of what any university is. Just look at the best ones, like Harvard and Yale. So if you are actually going to provide room and board and books and tuition for someone to play football, that should be purely self-funded, through direct revenues generated by that activity. Schools should have to either drum up enough interest in their intercollegiate athletics to pay for it directly, or else cut their athletic budgets to live within their direct-funded (no student fees or transfers from the 'academic side') means.

I don't agree with your analysis.

But that's OK.

(07-17-2018 09:28 AM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  I don't agree with your analysis.

But that's OK.

Fair enough.

This is basically how the 15 or 20 largest schools operate as is.

(07-17-2018 08:30 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-17-2018 07:34 AM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(07-16-2018 07:55 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  [quote='quo vadis' pid='15387042' dateline='1531788955']
As for revenue - if athletics can't generate enough to pay its bills, then that's proof that the demand isn't there, the university community doesn't want it that bad.

Do you hold the Chemistry Department to the same standards? The Office of Diversity? The landscaping crew?

No. The Chemistry Department is an academic department, and thus a legitimate function of a university. It should be subsidized. Though I will say in some states, that is changing. E.g., here in Louisiana, the legislature passed a rule about the financial viability of departments and majors. That is, if enrollment in a department or major, like chemistry, falls below the level needed to generate the revenue to pay for itself over a three-year time period, the program will be cut. We lost our Economics major that way a couple years ago. I think that is terrible, but it is an idea taking hold in budget-tight times. Landscaping is maintenance, thus necessary as well.

But *intercollegiate* athletics is in no way shape or form part of the legitimate core mission of any university. It isn't part of the Socratic mind/body/spirit of a university (intramural athletics and physical education are, because all students can participate in them). It should therefore be on a strict pay-as-you-go basis. It's an amenity, a tangential activity. LSU funds it the correct way.

(07-16-2018 07:55 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Otherwise it's a welfare program for elite athletes.

Otherwise known as scholarships, of which many people receive across this country for various skills to include academic prowess, artistic talent, and athletic skills.

Difference is, an "athletic scholarship" is an oxymoron. Art and academics are part and parcel of what any university is. Just look at the best ones, like Harvard and Yale. So if you are actually going to provide room and board and books and tuition for someone to play football, that should be purely self-funded, through direct revenues generated by that activity. Schools should have to either drum up enough interest in their intercollegiate athletics to pay for it directly, or else cut their athletic budgets to live within their direct-funded (no student fees or transfers from the 'academic side') means.

Whether athletics *should* have the focus that they have by universities is a global question about whether we (as Americans) emphasize sports too much, especially compared to other developed nations. However, we simply can't pretend, whether it's right or wrong, that athletics aren't part of the core mission of universities as they stand today. They ARE part of that core mission because they are treated as such in terms of financial support, administrative support and marketing. Even elite schools that don't provide athletic scholarships, such as Harvard and Yale that you've mentioned, have a very large emphasis on sports.

Harvard's own internal findings (which are now exposed because of a racial discrimination case being brought up by Asian-Americans) show that there is actually no greater hook to gaining acceptance to Harvard than being a recruited athlete:

https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2018/...dmissions/

Some key quotes:

Quote:Athletes with the highest or second-highest academic rating on an internal Harvard admissions scale have an acceptance rate of 83 percent—compared to 16 percent for non-athletes—according to a report from the University’s Office of Internal Research.

The report, initially meant to remain internal, was referenced by anti-affirmative action group Students for Fair Admissions in documents filed in court June 15.

SFFA is currently suing Harvard over alleged discrimination against Asian-American applicants in its admissions process. The University has repeatedly denied these claims.

Both the University and SFFA submitted expert analyses of admissions data on June 15, but the group’s respective methodologies differ on the treatment of athletes

SFFA hired Duke University professor Peter S. Arcidiacono and senior fellow at The Century Foundation Richard D. Kahlenberg ’85 to author two separate studies based on data released to the group. In turn, Harvard hired University of California, Berkeley professor David E. Card to analyze the SFFA findings and conduct an alternative study.

While Card considered athletes in his analysis, Arcidiacono excluded athletes because of the different standard by which they are evaluated in comparison to non-athletes, according to SFFA’s filings.

By Ivy League Conference rules, recruited athletes are placed on a 240-point Academic Index, which is calculated based on GPA and standardized test scores. While the minimum score required for Ivy League admissions is 176, the average Academic Index for recruited athletes cannot be more than one standard deviation below the index of the previous four freshmen classes.

At Harvard, the student body index is roughly 220—approximately equivalent to a SAT score of 2200 and near 4.0 GPA, according to a 2014 Crimson report. Students who walk-on to teams are not included in the Athletic Department’s estimate.

Coaches cannot guarantee admissions spots to prospective student-athletes, whose applications must be vetted by the full 40-member admissions committee. Recruited athletes who pass this process will receive a ‘likely letter,’ indicating the applicant is likely to be admitted by the University.

Arcidiacono noted that athletes with an academic rating of 1 or 2 on Harvard’s scale of 1 to 6—with 1 being the highest and 6 the lowest—had a markedly higher admit rate than non-athletes with the same academic scores. For example, Arcidiacono noted that recruited athletes with an academic rating of 4 had an acceptance rate of 70.46 percent, nearly a thousand times greater than the 0.076 percent admit rate for non-athletes with the same academic rating.

So, even Harvard gives a bigger advantage to athletic prowess over literally every other academic qualification of its applicants. If Harvard is doing that, you can be assured that all of the other Ivy League schools are doing it, too. A huge percentage of the student populations of elite Division III-level liberal arts colleges (e.g. Williams, Amherst, etc.) that don't provide athletic scholarships are members of varsity sports teams, as well (and it's well-known that being a recruited athlete is also the best ticket possible to get into those schools).

I'm not saying that any of this is a good or bad thing. I just don't think we can argue that sports aren't part of the core mission of major universities in America today, even at the ones that don't explicitly have athletic scholarships. In reality, sports are treated very much as part of the core mission by both administrators and the public and that's simply not going to change. That's why message boards like this one exist in the first place.

(07-17-2018 01:52 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  I'm not saying that any of this is a good or bad thing. I just don't think we can argue that sports aren't part of the core mission of major universities in America today, even at the ones that don't explicitly have athletic scholarships. In reality, sports are treated very much as part of the core mission by both administrators and the public and that's simply not going to change. That's why message boards like this one exist in the first place.

Point taken about how Harvard operates with regard to athletes. Beyond that, I tried to make it clear that intercollegiate athletics, with significant money spent on "athletic scholarships" and facilities, should not be part of the mission of any university.

I'm not against intercollegiate athletics - I am counting down the 39 days until college football kicks off, and I will watch games 13 hours a day the whole season. I support all USF athletics. But it should be funded precisely with that kind of support, by voluntary direct payments from students, alumni, staff, and members of the public who are interested in it, without forced student fees or transfers from the academic side.

Well, with Humbolt State dropping football due to budget constraints, they could fall in line with this topic I started.

Also, I should mention that my idea of this association would consolidate a lot of schools from all levels to minimize travel. In addition, I would organize by enrollment if possible.

(07-17-2018 01:52 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(07-17-2018 08:30 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-17-2018 07:34 AM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(07-16-2018 07:55 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  [quote='quo vadis' pid='15387042' dateline='1531788955']
As for revenue - if athletics can't generate enough to pay its bills, then that's proof that the demand isn't there, the university community doesn't want it that bad.

Do you hold the Chemistry Department to the same standards? The Office of Diversity? The landscaping crew?

No. The Chemistry Department is an academic department, and thus a legitimate function of a university. It should be subsidized. Though I will say in some states, that is changing. E.g., here in Louisiana, the legislature passed a rule about the financial viability of departments and majors. That is, if enrollment in a department or major, like chemistry, falls below the level needed to generate the revenue to pay for itself over a three-year time period, the program will be cut. We lost our Economics major that way a couple years ago. I think that is terrible, but it is an idea taking hold in budget-tight times. Landscaping is maintenance, thus necessary as well.

But *intercollegiate* athletics is in no way shape or form part of the legitimate core mission of any university. It isn't part of the Socratic mind/body/spirit of a university (intramural athletics and physical education are, because all students can participate in them). It should therefore be on a strict pay-as-you-go basis. It's an amenity, a tangential activity. LSU funds it the correct way.

(07-16-2018 07:55 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Otherwise it's a welfare program for elite athletes.

Otherwise known as scholarships, of which many people receive across this country for various skills to include academic prowess, artistic talent, and athletic skills.

Difference is, an "athletic scholarship" is an oxymoron. Art and academics are part and parcel of what any university is. Just look at the best ones, like Harvard and Yale. So if you are actually going to provide room and board and books and tuition for someone to play football, that should be purely self-funded, through direct revenues generated by that activity. Schools should have to either drum up enough interest in their intercollegiate athletics to pay for it directly, or else cut their athletic budgets to live within their direct-funded (no student fees or transfers from the 'academic side') means.

Whether athletics *should* have the focus that they have by universities is a global question about whether we (as Americans) emphasize sports too much, especially compared to other developed nations. However, we simply can't pretend, whether it's right or wrong, that athletics aren't part of the core mission of universities as they stand today. They ARE part of that core mission because they are treated as such in terms of financial support, administrative support and marketing. Even elite schools that don't provide athletic scholarships, such as Harvard and Yale that you've mentioned, have a very large emphasis on sports.

We aren't the only nation that developed a strong affinity for sports.
The difference is other nations developed a strong club culture. The interest of people to play, the ability to pay the costs by the participants or pay via sponsors and ticket sales influenced the viability of clubs.

Now the why of club vs college probably traces back to free time, population density, the ability to travel to the next nearest club, etc.

(07-17-2018 11:53 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(07-17-2018 01:52 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(07-17-2018 08:30 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-17-2018 07:34 AM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(07-16-2018 07:55 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  [quote='quo vadis' pid='15387042' dateline='1531788955']
As for revenue - if athletics can't generate enough to pay its bills, then that's proof that the demand isn't there, the university community doesn't want it that bad.

Do you hold the Chemistry Department to the same standards? The Office of Diversity? The landscaping crew?

No. The Chemistry Department is an academic department, and thus a legitimate function of a university. It should be subsidized. Though I will say in some states, that is changing. E.g., here in Louisiana, the legislature passed a rule about the financial viability of departments and majors. That is, if enrollment in a department or major, like chemistry, falls below the level needed to generate the revenue to pay for itself over a three-year time period, the program will be cut. We lost our Economics major that way a couple years ago. I think that is terrible, but it is an idea taking hold in budget-tight times. Landscaping is maintenance, thus necessary as well.

But *intercollegiate* athletics is in no way shape or form part of the legitimate core mission of any university. It isn't part of the Socratic mind/body/spirit of a university (intramural athletics and physical education are, because all students can participate in them). It should therefore be on a strict pay-as-you-go basis. It's an amenity, a tangential activity. LSU funds it the correct way.

(07-16-2018 07:55 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Otherwise it's a welfare program for elite athletes.

Otherwise known as scholarships, of which many people receive across this country for various skills to include academic prowess, artistic talent, and athletic skills.

Difference is, an "athletic scholarship" is an oxymoron. Art and academics are part and parcel of what any university is. Just look at the best ones, like Harvard and Yale. So if you are actually going to provide room and board and books and tuition for someone to play football, that should be purely self-funded, through direct revenues generated by that activity. Schools should have to either drum up enough interest in their intercollegiate athletics to pay for it directly, or else cut their athletic budgets to live within their direct-funded (no student fees or transfers from the 'academic side') means.

Whether athletics *should* have the focus that they have by universities is a global question about whether we (as Americans) emphasize sports too much, especially compared to other developed nations. However, we simply can't pretend, whether it's right or wrong, that athletics aren't part of the core mission of universities as they stand today. They ARE part of that core mission because they are treated as such in terms of financial support, administrative support and marketing. Even elite schools that don't provide athletic scholarships, such as Harvard and Yale that you've mentioned, have a very large emphasis on sports.

We aren't the only nation that developed a strong affinity for sports.
The difference is other nations developed a strong club culture. The interest of people to play, the ability to pay the costs by the participants or pay via sponsors and ticket sales influenced the viability of clubs.

Now the why of club vs college probably traces back to free time, population density, the ability to travel to the next nearest club, etc.

Agreed on that front. To your point, America is unique in that it directly ties education with athletics not just at the college level, but in high school and lower levels, as well. I live in a town where the academics and test scores of our public schools are extremely strong (and those schools are reason #1 why most people choose to live here), yet we still have signs at our town's boundaries trumpeting that it's the home of the state champions in football, girl's soccer and other sports in a way that it doesn't trumpet similar accomplishments for Mathletes, Quiz Bowl or other academic teams. Other countries might have strong sports cultures, but they're generally a separate universe from their educational systems (almost a church-and-state-like separation) with the emphasis on clubs.

(07-17-2018 03:50 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-17-2018 01:52 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  I'm not saying that any of this is a good or bad thing. I just don't think we can argue that sports aren't part of the core mission of major universities in America today, even at the ones that don't explicitly have athletic scholarships. In reality, sports are treated very much as part of the core mission by both administrators and the public and that's simply not going to change. That's why message boards like this one exist in the first place.

Point taken about how Harvard operates with regard to athletes. Beyond that, I tried to make it clear that intercollegiate athletics, with significant money spent on "athletic scholarships" and facilities, should not be part of the mission of any university.

I'm not against intercollegiate athletics - I am counting down the 39 days until college football kicks off, and I will watch games 13 hours a day the whole season. I support all USF athletics. But it should be funded precisely with that kind of support, by voluntary direct payments from students, alumni, staff, and members of the public who are interested in it, without forced student fees or transfers from the academic side.

That is your opinion. Most others disagree.

(07-18-2018 11:34 AM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(07-17-2018 03:50 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-17-2018 01:52 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  I'm not saying that any of this is a good or bad thing. I just don't think we can argue that sports aren't part of the core mission of major universities in America today, even at the ones that don't explicitly have athletic scholarships. In reality, sports are treated very much as part of the core mission by both administrators and the public and that's simply not going to change. That's why message boards like this one exist in the first place.

Point taken about how Harvard operates with regard to athletes. Beyond that, I tried to make it clear that intercollegiate athletics, with significant money spent on "athletic scholarships" and facilities, should not be part of the mission of any university.

I'm not against intercollegiate athletics - I am counting down the 39 days until college football kicks off, and I will watch games 13 hours a day the whole season. I support all USF athletics. But it should be funded precisely with that kind of support, by voluntary direct payments from students, alumni, staff, and members of the public who are interested in it, without forced student fees or transfers from the academic side.

That is your opinion. Most others disagree.

Um, so what?

On this forum at least, that just means that many are supporters of schools that want to have a higher athletic profile than their fan base support can justify, so they are willing to soak students with mandatory fees to have that. Sadly, they have an entitlement attitude - they want others to be forced to pay for something they want.

To me, it's the alumni, those who have graduated and have made their way in the world in part thanks to the education they received at their school that should bear the burden of supporting its athletics. We should be giving back to the institution that served us well. Current students should be in 'receiving' mode on that, not 'taking from'.

As a USF alumni, it pains me to see current USF students being soaked with athletics fees when they are trying to achieve a USF education and have yet to receive the benefits thereof.

I can live with being in the minority on that one.

(07-18-2018 12:03 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-18-2018 11:34 AM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(07-17-2018 03:50 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-17-2018 01:52 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  I'm not saying that any of this is a good or bad thing. I just don't think we can argue that sports aren't part of the core mission of major universities in America today, even at the ones that don't explicitly have athletic scholarships. In reality, sports are treated very much as part of the core mission by both administrators and the public and that's simply not going to change. That's why message boards like this one exist in the first place.

Point taken about how Harvard operates with regard to athletes. Beyond that, I tried to make it clear that intercollegiate athletics, with significant money spent on "athletic scholarships" and facilities, should not be part of the mission of any university.

I'm not against intercollegiate athletics - I am counting down the 39 days until college football kicks off, and I will watch games 13 hours a day the whole season. I support all USF athletics. But it should be funded precisely with that kind of support, by voluntary direct payments from students, alumni, staff, and members of the public who are interested in it, without forced student fees or transfers from the academic side.

That is your opinion. Most others disagree.

Um, so what?

On this forum at least, that just means that many are supporters of schools that want to have a higher athletic profile than their fan base support can justify, so they are willing to soak students with mandatory fees to have that. Sadly, they have an entitlement attitude - they want others to be forced to pay for something they want.

To me, it's the alumni, those who have graduated and have made their way in the world in part thanks to the education they received at their school that should bear the burden of supporting its athletics. We should be giving back to the institution that served us well. Current students should be in 'receiving' mode on that, not 'taking from'.

As a USF alumni, it pains me to see current USF students being soaked with athletics fees when they are trying to achieve a USF education and have yet to receive the benefits thereof.

I can live with being in the minority on that one.

While I'm not the extreme you are at, I think universities are out of control. There are quite a few schools who could have very good athletic programs and pour over money to support the academic mission who do not do so. There are schools that rely heavily upon the university budget and the borrowing power of students to fund athletics who could get by on much less.

There are 23 G5's self-generating essentially $15 million or more.

Now you can't have a million dollar head coach at $15 million but you can have a quarter million dollar head coach at $15 million.

My friend who spent years at a high level in P5 athletic department and I were talking about the then latest G5 coach to get a raise of more than $2 million to go to a P5. He observed that the school would have landed that coach for much less money but they paid that ridiculous salary primarily to "prove" to the fans that they were serious about winning.

The guy won't be coaching better with an extra $10 million plus over five years guaranteed, they simply spent to create a perception. That's nuts.

If a school were to drop all intramural sports would they still be able to fulfill their mission? I can’t think of a case where they wouldn’t.

Chemistry to athletics isn’t an apples to apples comparison. You would have to compare something like an engineering department to athletics. If a school were to drop engineering would they be able to to fulfill their mission? The answer is no. Although the mission would probably be rewritten to omit engineering.

I do think spinning football off is a good idea. It isolates the university from a lot of negatives and solves a lot of title IX issues.