Good opportunity for colleges to dump non-revenue producing sports

[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.

What you mean is “indentured labor” sports teams. “Artificially low wage” sports teams. “Exploited player” sports teams Not revenue producing.

If you love revenue so much, how about you come out in favor of paying the athletes what they are worth?

Or do you just want to pay the often rich white conservative coaches millions while the working-class or poor athletes get screwed? Don’t answer that.

“Revenue producing” my ass. The profit comes from exploiting labor. As usual for conservatives (and if you want to cut other teams you’re conservative on this issue) - they’re in favor of stealing money on the backs of workers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

What's wrong with it is the only disability most student athletes have seems to be being an athlete.

[Anonymous]

Why does this subject lead to such vitriol? If you don't like the athletic culture at some school, go to a different one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

What's wrong with it is the only disability most student athletes have seems to be being an athlete.

OK. If you feel the need to speculate on whose disability is “real” or not, you probably should not be a professor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

What's wrong with it is the only disability most student athletes have seems to be being an athlete.

OK. If you feel the need to speculate on whose disability is “real” or not, you probably should not be a professor.

I appreciate the advice.

[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.

The “cost” our vastly over inflated.

Colleges dramatically overstate what they actually spend on scholarships.
If you pull up a school’s report on the USA Today or Department of Education databases, “scholarships” are generally listed as either the second- or third-largest expense, behind salaries and facilities. Tuition is expensive, and if you add up the sticker price for tuition, room, board, books, and more, you could be looking at more than $50,000 an athlete. So it’s easy to see how a school could list scholarship spending at over $10 million a season (in FBS, the median is around $6 million, per the NCAA).

That’s what it says on paper, but the school isn’t actually cutting checks like that.

As economist Andy Schwarz has explained several times, here for Vice, the athletic department is “paying” the school, using something called transfer-price accounting. But that isn’t an accurate depiction of real costs.

This is true whether the department is called ‘communications’ or ‘athletics.’ If central school accounting says each full scholarship costs $50,000, then to the department head or Athletics Director (AD), it likely feels like a real cost. But to the school as a whole, unless forgoing that scholarship really increases total cash by $50,000, that’s not what it actually costs.

Currently, when athletic departments give a scholarship, they commonly get charged the full retail price (sometimes of an out-of-state student) regardless of the actual cost to the school of providing one more space at the school. The food and books provided probably costs half of what they charge. The real cost of tuition and dorm space is probably de minimis, unless by giving that space to an athlete, a paying customer is forced out. Except for very selective schools with tight space constraints, most of the expenses listed as part of an athletic scholarship are overstated and sometimes purely fictional transfer prices.

https://www.bannersociety.com/2019/8/12/20704195/college-football-athletic-budgets

[Anonymous]

Scholarships are only a small part of athletic budgets so your argument is not convincing. You have to add in the coaches' salaries, facilities, transportation, etc.

[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.

You have got to be kidding.

You must not know any scholar athletes.

[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.

You must teach at a very low-ranked school. And I agree with a PP that you don't sound like a legitimate "faculty member."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

What's wrong with it is the only disability most student athletes have seems to be being an athlete.

OK. If you feel the need to speculate on whose disability is “real” or not, you probably should not be a professor.

It is highly doubtful that this poster is a professor. Based on the writing style, I feel confident that your child with a disability and my child who is an athlete, are “far, far” faster mentally than the PP.

[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.

How do you know if your students are athletes or not? It's not like they show up to class wearing athletic gear.

I was a competitive athlete at a D1 school. I sincerely doubt that many of my professors knew about it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

DP. The professor is just bitter that the athletes do better in average after university, and definitely better than the professor himself. Pay no mind. Jealousy is an ugly look.

[Anonymous]

It's actually Time for colleges and universities to dump provosts and vice presidents and the offices that go along with the position. That's where our colleges can make huge cuts today

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's actually Time for colleges and universities to dump provosts and vice presidents and the offices that go along with the position. That's where our colleges can make huge cuts today

THIS!!! It’s been proven time and time again that the administrative bloat has absolutely exploded in the past few decades. No more.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's actually Time for colleges and universities to dump provosts and vice presidents and the offices that go along with the position. That's where our colleges can make huge cuts today

THIS!!! It’s been proven time and time again that the administrative bloat has absolutely exploded in the past few decades. No more.

It is the administration bloat that led to explosion of tuition increases. Plus buildings. And have you seen the food choices in the dining halls? Need to cut those back. My public state school kid has choice of 2 cereals. The private school has a whole wall of choices.