Good opportunity for colleges to dump non-revenue producing sports

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What’s your interest in seeing these sports cut, OP? You bitter an athlete was admitted when your kid wasn’t? Hoping your HS kid will have a better chance at an elite?

If my kids go to a school like JMU I don't want to pay $8,000 extra per kid just so JMU has a golf team, a tennis team, soccer teams. Just keep basketball and football. If there is another sport that has a neutral cost then keep that sport too.

[Anonymous]

I agree with OP

[Anonymous]

Why should the criteria be making money or breaking even? Virtually no drama, orchestra, or other programs in the arts make money for colleges, so should those all be cut as well? Colleges provide those programs and non-revenue sports because they want to attract a wide variety of students to campus, not because they are potential profit centers (although alums who played college sports almost always contribute more to the school than the average non-athlete alums, and colleges definitely take that into account).

Also, have you seen the stats about the percentage of female CEOs who played sports in college? It’s quite striking how many did. There are strong connections between playing sports at a high level and future earning potential, scoff as you may at all the athletes you feel are inferior to you or your kid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why should the criteria be making money or breaking even? Virtually no drama, orchestra, or other programs in the arts make money for colleges, so should those all be cut as well? Colleges provide those programs and non-revenue sports because they want to attract a wide variety of students to campus, not because they are potential profit centers (although alums who played college sports almost always contribute more to the school than the average non-athlete alums, and colleges definitely take that into account).

Also, have you seen the stats about the percentage of female CEOs who played sports in college? It’s quite striking how many did. There are strong connections between playing sports at a high level and future earning potential, scoff as you may at all the athletes you feel are inferior to you or your kid.

I don’t think that applied to individual sports

[Anonymous]

If only they got rid of worthless academic departments ...

[Anonymous]

Students are paying fees and tuition. They are revenue producing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why should the criteria be making money or breaking even? Virtually no drama, orchestra, or other programs in the arts make money for colleges, so should those all be cut as well? Colleges provide those programs and non-revenue sports because they want to attract a wide variety of students to campus, not because they are potential profit centers (although alums who played college sports almost always contribute more to the school than the average non-athlete alums, and colleges definitely take that into account).

Also, have you seen the stats about the percentage of female CEOs who played sports in college? It’s quite striking how many did. There are strong connections between playing sports at a high level and future earning potential, scoff as you may at all the athletes you feel are inferior to you or your kid.

Drama and orchestra professors aren't getting paid substantially more than college professors. This is from a Washington post article:

" From 2006 to 2016, pay for Kentucky’s track and field coach climbed from $108,000 to $429,000; men’s tennis coach pay jumped from $122,000 to $230,000; and gymnastics coach pay rose from $112,000 to $252,000. Every coach made more than the school’s average full professor’s salary. In a phenomenon playing out across the country, salaries are soaring for coaches of lower-profile college sports largely subsidized by lucrative football and men’s basketball"
https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/colleges/as-ncaa-money-trickles-down-even-tennis-coaches-are-outearning-professors/2017/03/13/d40d448e-043b-11e7-b9fa-ed727b644a0b_story.html

The article goes on to explain Univof Kentucky was going to build a $49 million baseball stadium. For a baseball team that drew 150 fans on opening day.
"The Wildcats baseball team was playing its 2017 home opener against Eastern Kentucky. In the dugout, Wildcats Coach Nick Mingione — who is making $375,000 this year, up from the $235,000 the job paid in 2006 — clapped and shouted encouragement, as did the sparse crowd of about 150 in the stands. (Mingione took over last June for Gary Henderson, who made $577,000 in 2016.)"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yet the students on those teams are precisely the type of students most colleges and universities want. Why? Because those scholar athletes bring something special to the table. They are leaders. They are determined. They understand the concepts of effort and self-regulation. They get along well with others because they are used to working on a team. They work hard because they understand that strong input results in strong output. It would be extremely shortsighted for any university to start cutting sports teams.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yet the students on those teams are precisely the type of students most colleges and universities want. Why? Because those scholar athletes bring something special to the table. They are leaders. They are determined. They understand the concepts of effort and self-regulation. They get along well with others because they are used to working on a team. They work hard because they understand that strong input results in strong output. It would be extremely shortsighted for any university to start cutting sports teams.

As a faculty member who has taught thousands of student, I can assure you that student athletes are among the weakest performers in the classroom. Not just because their time or mental energy is taken up by their sport, but also because they are not as intelligent, on average, as non-athlete students. Many of them are actually far, far slower mentally.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yet the students on those teams are precisely the type of students most colleges and universities want. Why? Because those scholar athletes bring something special to the table. They are leaders. They are determined. They understand the concepts of effort and self-regulation. They get along well with others because they are used to working on a team. They work hard because they understand that strong input results in strong output. It would be extremely shortsighted for any university to start cutting sports teams.

As a faculty member who has taught thousands of student, I can assure you that student athletes are among the weakest performers in the classroom. Not just because their time or mental energy is taken up by their sport, but also because they are not as intelligent, on average, as non-athlete students. Many of them are actually far, far slower mentally.

This impersonation of a faculty member is not very believable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yet the students on those teams are precisely the type of students most colleges and universities want. Why? Because those scholar athletes bring something special to the table. They are leaders. They are determined. They understand the concepts of effort and self-regulation. They get along well with others because they are used to working on a team. They work hard because they understand that strong input results in strong output. It would be extremely shortsighted for any university to start cutting sports teams.

Oh please. Enough with the glorification of athletes. High school is over; nobody cares.

In my town the Division I Lady volleyball and Lady gymnastics regularly bring in fan counts of around 14,000 people per event to watch the event. I guess 14,000 people care.

There must be nothing else going on in your town. Also, stop referring to women's teams as "lady" teams, yuck.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yet the students on those teams are precisely the type of students most colleges and universities want. Why? Because those scholar athletes bring something special to the table. They are leaders. They are determined. They understand the concepts of effort and self-regulation. They get along well with others because they are used to working on a team. They work hard because they understand that strong input results in strong output. It would be extremely shortsighted for any university to start cutting sports teams.

Oh please. Enough with the glorification of athletes. High school is over; nobody cares.

In my town the Division I Lady volleyball and Lady gymnastics regularly bring in fan counts of around 14,000 people per event to watch the event. I guess 14,000 people care.

There must be nothing else going on in your town. Also, stop referring to women's teams as "lady" teams, yuck.

No kidding. I've been around these female athletes. They certainly are not what I would consider "ladies."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yet the students on those teams are precisely the type of students most colleges and universities want. Why? Because those scholar athletes bring something special to the table. They are leaders. They are determined. They understand the concepts of effort and self-regulation. They get along well with others because they are used to working on a team. They work hard because they understand that strong input results in strong output. It would be extremely shortsighted for any university to start cutting sports teams.

As a faculty member who has taught thousands of student, I can assure you that student athletes are among the weakest performers in the classroom. Not just because their time or mental energy is taken up by their sport, but also because they are not as intelligent, on average, as non-athlete students. Many of them are actually far, far slower mentally.

This impersonation of a faculty member is not very believable.

Lol, ok. I'll let you know when I have top sending tests over to student disability services for your "athlete student."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The NCAA mandates that schools with revenue producing sports teams like football have in some cases 16 other sports teams. Colleges are trying to get waivers to be able to cut some of these teams. Here is an article with a chart that explains sports like football, men and women's basketball teams, men's hockey make money. Two other sports like baseball and track and field at least earn a million dollars on average, although track and field probably has a huge roster. Sports like tennis, golf, cross country, and men and women's soccer need to be subsidized because they don't make enough money
https://www.businessinsider.com/college-sports-revenue-2016-10

And who has to subsidize these sports that don't make money and barely anyone goes and watches- students! At JMU students are paying 2,000 dollars every year to subsidize sports teams. That is $8,000 over 4 years.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/education/hidden-figures-college-students-may-be-paying-thousands-athletic-fees-n1145171

Colleges should not be forced to have a certain number of sports teams.

Did you actually look at the numbers? Because those sports still have revenue, just no where near as high as football.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yet the students on those teams are precisely the type of students most colleges and universities want. Why? Because those scholar athletes bring something special to the table. They are leaders. They are determined. They understand the concepts of effort and self-regulation. They get along well with others because they are used to working on a team. They work hard because they understand that strong input results in strong output. It would be extremely shortsighted for any university to start cutting sports teams.

As a faculty member who has taught thousands of student, I can assure you that student athletes are among the weakest performers in the classroom. Not just because their time or mental energy is taken up by their sport, but also because they are not as intelligent, on average, as non-athlete students. Many of them are actually far, far slower mentally.

This impersonation of a faculty member is not very believable.

Lol, ok. I'll let you know when I have top sending tests over to student disability services for your "athlete student."

I have a student with a disability and this is what she does. What’s wrong with that?