“[R]unning a multimillion-dollar enterprise of de facto minor league football and basketball teams that essentially serve as uniformed billboards has exceedingly little to do with the curation and advancement of human knowledge.”
I’m with this guy, but would go further. Along with the bogosity of amateurism, dispense with the bogosity of studentism. Universities would continue to have teams, but the teams would be autonomous of the university, made up of full-time professional athletes not yet old enough to enter the major leagues.
July 27th, 2010 at 1:22AM
The problem with this is that the association with a university is what pulls in so many people at the big sports universities. The University of Michigan football team can pull in 100,000 fans per game because of its association with university life. If athletes are allowed to get too many perks it could alienate the fan base.
I know most university sports franchises don’t attract enough attendees to be profitable but imagine how much less profitable they would be without being associated with a university. Marketing would be a much tougher sell.
Besides, universities have found a way to get thousands of people willing to give them exorbitant amounts of money. They get so much money from these dupes that they can subsidize the sports franchise. The rest of us get to enjoy quality athletics without having to fork over money. That’s what the dupes are for.
A good university president is someone who understands that the dupes are needed but also understands that you don’t spend too much on the dupes because then you have less money to spend on training facilities, stadiums, etc. On the other hand you don’t want to give the players too much money or freedom. That breeds complacency and performance suffers. You get better performance from the players from the hope of someday getting a big payday in the big leagues. It’s a complicated system and that’s why a good university president is worth his/her weight in gold.
July 27th, 2010 at 10:55AM
I thought you might like this article, as it seems to apply:
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700051047/Utah-colleges-spend-more-on-sports.html?pg=1
excerpt:
“Indeed, a national debate is heating up in higher education over the balance between funding for athletics and academics. However, Utah’s colleges are largely on the sidelines, with officials expressing little enthusiasm for cutting athletics programs even as their overall budgets saw a 12.5 percent decrease in state funding last year.
And in most cases, they say it hasn’t been much of an issue on campus, even as athletics spending has grown: from $12.8 million at Utah State University in 2006-07 to $17.8 million just two years later, and from $5.7 million to $7.2 million at Southern Utah University in that same period.
“It comes up every year in the regular budget cycle,” said Paul Brinkman, vice president for budget and analysis at the U. “It hasn’t really been a hot item. There’s been no knock-down, drag-out struggle over it.”
Story continues below
Brinkman said he hopes the U. doesn’t get “caught up in the extraordinary levels of funding” seen at other schools in the Pac-10.”
See, it’s not even an issue. Athletic spending goes up, academic spending goes down, and no one really bats an eye. It’s not an issue.
July 27th, 2010 at 2:04PM
conservativeEnglish PhD: Many thanks for that comment, and for the link to the article, which I’ll now read in full. UD