How To Reform College Sports: Best-Selling Author John U. Bacon Makes His Case

cutchemist42

Registered User
Apr 7, 2011
6,705
220
Winnipeg
Honestly, if people were not guaranteed scholarships for minor sports I wouldn't even complain an ounce. I think the conferences themselves require too many sports to be guaranteed by every school in the conference. I think the university athletic departments get to play around with money-losing sports like this because they know they'll get the money from other students and taxpayers. I think alot of those minor sports are athletic white elephants, and their only use is to be used in cheesy NCAA PR commercials.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

KevFu

Registered User
May 22, 2009
9,007
3,239
Phoenix from Rochester via New Orleans
Honestly, if people were not guaranteed scholarships for minor sports I wouldn't even complain an ounce. I think the conferences themselves require too many sports to be guaranteed by every school in the conference. I think the university athletic departments get to play around with money-losing sports like this because they know they'll get the money from other students and taxpayers. I think alot of those minor sports are athletic white elephants, and their only use is to be used in cheesy NCAA PR commercials.

The issue I have with the "debate" in college athletics (aka "why KevFu appears to be a mouthpiece for the NCAA) is that all the rules, policies and "reasons why" were actually put in place for a reason and actually make sense.

It's the evolution and the infusion of TV money that make people think something is horrible wrong.

The whole point of the rules is an equal competitive playing field. (Unfortunately, those with the TV money can evenly compete better in everything, hence the BCS' perceived dominance).

Kicking schools out of Division I for financial reasons is simply a bad idea. They SHOULD make the requirements more strict -- as in you DO need more money to be D-I than you do now, but it should have the goal of providing more academic opportunities through more athletic scholarships, and not kick out schools that don't have TV contracts.
 

Xelebes

Registered User
Jun 10, 2007
9,013
595
Edmonton, Alberta
Thing is, none of these sports are "equity" sports. The athletic department, with much grousing from the football coach, chooses how many actual scholarships are awarded. These are not full-ride scholarships (the definition of an "equity sport" is that such sport must award full-ride scholarships), so there's an element of "pay-to-play" here... from the athletes to the university. If you add everything up, I question how much football truly contributes. There MIGHT be the issue of what the athletic department contributes vs the students paying tuition to the university's general fund... and it's hard to find two schools that account for revenues and expenses the same way, BTW.

In any event, I'm coming to the mindset that you have to kill the beast to save it.

I've also that there is also some accounting fudgery going on when it comes to determining the benefits and allocations of those profits. That is, many of the dollars that are claimed to be put in the other programs often end up applied in the big money sports programs (M football & M basketball.)
 

DoyleG

Reality sucks, Princesses!
Dec 29, 2008
7,291
882
YEG-->YYJ-->YWG-->YYB
Honestly, if people were not guaranteed scholarships for minor sports I wouldn't even complain an ounce. I think the conferences themselves require too many sports to be guaranteed by every school in the conference. I think the university athletic departments get to play around with money-losing sports like this because they know they'll get the money from other students and taxpayers. I think alot of those minor sports are athletic white elephants, and their only use is to be used in cheesy NCAA PR commercials.

Thank Title IX for that.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->