Good opportunity for colleges to dump non-revenue producing sports

[Anonymous]

Have you seen the obesity in the US? Sports will not be cut.

[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.

College is about sport.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I work at a highly ranked university with a robust athletics program. Cuts in programs at big/elite schools won’t happen, for two reasons: first, Title IX (unless DeVos uses the pandemic as an excuse to suspend/kill it, which seems like the sort of thing this administration would do); second, American cultural glorification of athletes.

The fact that so many CEOs were college athletes isn’t the endorsement of college athletics a PP thinks it is; rather, it’s an indictment of the narrow way we view the qualities that make for successful leaders—competitive, driven, privileged, white, male. Lax bros don’t run Wall Street because they are smarter or better; they are simply protecting their own privilege—and they can get away with it in part because we’ve all bought into the idea that athletes are great leaders and that leadership in business/life is analogous to leadership on the field.

All of which is to say, barring a radical change to Title IX, not much will change. The wealthy white people whose sons play for their college golf team will not allow the unprofitable men’s golf team to be cut. Which means the unprofitable women’s golf team won’t be cut either. Etc.

Title iX is a federal law not an executive branch policy that the DOE could change. Congress would have to act to change the law. Men’s non-revenue generating sports are the most at risk for being cut. I’m most familiar with swimming and know that most swimmers do not get full rides. There are already many schools that have only women’s swimming teams or only give scholarships to the women because they have to off-set the number football scholarships. Just because a school has men’s golf does not mean they offer Golf scholarships BTW. And, FYI, the NCAA said “no” to the request that schools be able to have less than 16 sports and stay in Division I. That means that JMU, which only has the minimum 16 sports teams currently, will have to keep them or leave Division I entirely.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I work at a highly ranked university with a robust athletics program. Cuts in programs at big/elite schools won’t happen, for two reasons: first, Title IX (unless DeVos uses the pandemic as an excuse to suspend/kill it, which seems like the sort of thing this administration would do); second, American cultural glorification of athletes.

The fact that so many CEOs were college athletes isn’t the endorsement of college athletics a PP thinks it is; rather, it’s an indictment of the narrow way we view the qualities that make for successful leaders—competitive, driven, privileged, white, male. Lax bros don’t run Wall Street because they are smarter or better; they are simply protecting their own privilege—and they can get away with it in part because we’ve all bought into the idea that athletes are great leaders and that leadership in business/life is analogous to leadership on the field.

All of which is to say, barring a radical change to Title IX, not much will change. The wealthy white people whose sons play for their college golf team will not allow the unprofitable men’s golf team to be cut. Which means the unprofitable women’s golf team won’t be cut either. Etc.

Title iX is a federal law not an executive branch policy that the DOE could change. Congress would have to act to change the law. Men’s non-revenue generating sports are the most at risk for being cut. I’m most familiar with swimming and know that most swimmers do not get full rides. There are already many schools that have only women’s swimming teams or only give scholarships to the women because they have to off-set the number football scholarships. Just because a school has men’s golf does not mean they offer Golf scholarships BTW. And, FYI, the NCAA said “no” to the request that schools be able to have less than 16 sports and stay in Division I. That means that JMU, which only has the minimum 16 sports teams currently, will have to keep them or leave Division I entirely.

They can change how they enforce it. That’s very much in character for this administration—to take an executive action in contravention of the law and wait to be sued.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Colleges are competing in the quality of dining fare, which is driving up fees. Of course, one does have to admit that PP's comment on cereal choice is idiotic.

I think you miss the point, if something like cereal that university is offering so many choices, what other things are unnecessary that drives up the cost?

[Anonymous]

I’m looking at the list of the administrators/staff at my alma mater. We have the dean of the business school. Two associate deans. An assistant dean of diversity and inclusion. Assistant dean for student life. Assistant dean of the graduate school. Dozens of academic advisors and “program coordinators” and “program directors”. Director of recruitment and admissions. Director of communications. Social media specialist. Director of assessment. Director of Faculty Affairs. Director of operations. Operations associate. Director of alumni relations. Alumni relations associate. Senior marketing specialist. Employer relations and events coordinator. International programs manager. VP of finance. Assistant director of student services. Senior student services coordinator. Director of student life. Assistant director of engagement and events.

The list was in alphabetical order and I stopped at the “Es”. And that’s JUST for the business school! Multiply that by the school of nursing, the school of engineering, letters & science, school of education, etc. and the university-wide administrators. It’s insane.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I work at a highly ranked university with a robust athletics program. Cuts in programs at big/elite schools won’t happen, for two reasons: first, Title IX (unless DeVos uses the pandemic as an excuse to suspend/kill it, which seems like the sort of thing this administration would do); second, American cultural glorification of athletes.

The fact that so many CEOs were college athletes isn’t the endorsement of college athletics a PP thinks it is; rather, it’s an indictment of the narrow way we view the qualities that make for successful leaders—competitive, driven, privileged, white, male. Lax bros don’t run Wall Street because they are smarter or better; they are simply protecting their own privilege—and they can get away with it in part because we’ve all bought into the idea that athletes are great leaders and that leadership in business/life is analogous to leadership on the field.

All of which is to say, barring a radical change to Title IX, not much will change. The wealthy white people whose sons play for their college golf team will not allow the unprofitable men’s golf team to be cut. Which means the unprofitable women’s golf team won’t be cut either. Etc.

Title iX is a federal law not an executive branch policy that the DOE could change. Congress would have to act to change the law. Men’s non-revenue generating sports are the most at risk for being cut. I’m most familiar with swimming and know that most swimmers do not get full rides. There are already many schools that have only women’s swimming teams or only give scholarships to the women because they have to off-set the number football scholarships. Just because a school has men’s golf does not mean they offer Golf scholarships BTW. And, FYI, the NCAA said “no” to the request that schools be able to have less than 16 sports and stay in Division I. That means that JMU, which only has the minimum 16 sports teams currently, will have to keep them or leave Division I entirely.

They can change how they enforce it. That’s very much in character for this administration—to take an executive action in contravention of the law and wait to be sued.

I’d love to see title 9 either modified or a change in how it’s enforced. Right now football is a main bill payer for many athletic departments and means there are 85 men’s scholarships counted to pay the bills. What that means is that for non football sports there’s less opportunity for men than for women. I don’t see it as equal that in non-revenue sports women get a golf, swim, or volleyball team if title 9 is indirectly keeping men from doing it. The law should be somewhat conscious of revenue vs non revenue sports for both sexes. The intentions were good to level opportunity but didn’t take into consideration the size of the football team to pay the bills

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m looking at the list of the administrators/staff at my alma mater. We have the dean of the business school. Two associate deans. An assistant dean of diversity and inclusion. Assistant dean for student life. Assistant dean of the graduate school. Dozens of academic advisors and “program coordinators” and “program directors”. Director of recruitment and admissions. Director of communications. Social media specialist. Director of assessment. Director of Faculty Affairs. Director of operations. Operations associate. Director of alumni relations. Alumni relations associate. Senior marketing specialist. Employer relations and events coordinator. International programs manager. VP of finance. Assistant director of student services. Senior student services coordinator. Director of student life. Assistant director of engagement and events.

The list was in alphabetical order and I stopped at the “Es”. And that’s JUST for the business school! Multiply that by the school of nursing, the school of engineering, letters & science, school of education, etc. and the university-wide administrators. It’s insane.

Yes. There’s been lots of discussion the past couple years about the overhead staff growth and what’s going to happen. Many thought that the population demographics of the next generation to educate being smaller than the current one would be what put pressure on that system but corona may do it first

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I always wonder what % of these kids are actually getting sports scholarships? Are all these swimmers, x country, field hockey, women's hockey, volleyball players going to college for 100% free (tuition & room and board)?

Not at all. There are very few sports where all the players get a full ride. Men’s and women’s D1 basketball, football, women’s volleyball, maybe one or two others. Here’s a good source: http://scholarshipstats.com/ncaalimits.html In the sport I’m most familiar with, soccer, women’s D1 teams have a total of 14 scholarships per team and men have 9.9, and most are split among the 25-30 players per team. D3 schools and ivies don’t offer athletic scholarships at all.

I’m not really sure why OP wants to see the non-revenue sports abolished. They attract students to schools and are a small fraction of school budgets. I do know a lot of parents who are resentful that athletes get accepted to elite schools and like to push a narrative that all the athletes are dumb and contribute nothing to campuses. Mostly sour grapes IMO.

[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.

Maybe it’s time for colleges to let go of revenue generating sports, and let the NFL and NBA create separate minor leagues, so schools and student-athletes prioritize academics more. I love sports, played sports.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Maybe it’s time for colleges to let go of revenue generating sports, and let the NFL and NBA create separate minor leagues, so schools and student-athletes prioritize academics more. I love sports, played sports.

Wanted to add I know a plenty of smart jocks. I used to enjoy college sports, but since so many of the athletes of major sports play one or two years before heading to the pros, they’ve become less team oriented and boring.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Colleges are competing in the quality of dining fare, which is driving up fees. Of course, one does have to admit that PP's comment on cereal choice is idiotic.

I think you miss the point, if something like cereal that university is offering so many choices, what other things are unnecessary that drives up the cost?

The reason the post is foolish is that no matter how many choices of cereal the cafeteria offers, the total amount of cereal consumption will likely remain the same. It really doesn't cost any more to offer a large assortment of cereal.

Instead, if you noted that cafeterias are serving more expensive, "gourmet" foods, that would actually drive up costs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I always wonder what % of these kids are actually getting sports scholarships? Are all these swimmers, x country, field hockey, women's hockey, volleyball players going to college for 100% free (tuition & room and board)?

Not at all. There are very few sports where all the players get a full ride. Men’s and women’s D1 basketball, football, women’s volleyball, maybe one or two others. Here’s a good source: http://scholarshipstats.com/ncaalimits.html In the sport I’m most familiar with, soccer, women’s D1 teams have a total of 14 scholarships per team and men have 9.9, and most are split among the 25-30 players per team. D3 schools and ivies don’t offer athletic scholarships at all.

I’m not really sure why OP wants to see the non-revenue sports abolished. They attract students to schools and are a small fraction of school budgets. I do know a lot of parents who are resentful that athletes get accepted to elite schools and like to push a narrative that all the athletes are dumb and contribute nothing to campuses. Mostly sour grapes IMO.

The issue is they are no longer a small fraction of many school budgets. Did you see how JMU students are paying over $2,000 each per year?

[Anonymous]

You know, if you don't like college that stress sports and you think scholar athletes are idiots, why don't you just go to a different college? And vice versa. There are plenty of choices out there. This thread is like arguments whether toilet paper should be hung with the end in the top or underneath. Who the F cares?

[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.

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."

Athlete-students have overwhelmingly been in the lowest-performing group in my classes for the past 20 years. Only track/cross-country students seem to break this mold. Even with the extra money that the school spends on special study halls and tutors for these athlete-students, they struggle with understanding content and keeping up with assignments. The two issues seem to be that they are at a university that is more challenging than they can handle, or that they lack intellectual motivation.