|
Please let me start by saying I am not a sports fan. However, at sometime during the fall I hear the same basic conversation, either in the news or from someone around me, so I am wondering if someone here knows how this works...
The conversation goes something like this - How can colleges and universities justify raising tuition and eliminating teachers while sports programs costs so much money? There seems to be two basic answers both of which claim it is better for the schools to have the sports.
answer 1. The sports programs are independent organizations cost the schools nothing, but the schools reaps benefits through reputation increasing attendance thus making money for the school.
answer 2. The sports programs do cost the schools a lot but for every $1.00 spent the schools get $1.10 (not real example, no one has ever supplied the profit margin). Also, I have been told of donations given to the schools by the sports programs and that coaches salaries (some higher than the school president) is partly paid by alumni thus not costing the schools much more than other faculty.
Both of these sound somewhat reasonable. Now I heard two news story that only a small portion of the NCAA 1-A sports programs actually made a profit. One report said 22 and the other said 9, but considering there 120 teams (I think) how can the schools in which the programs don't make a profit justify the programs.
I am not anti-sports, I am just trying to understand.
Thanks to anyone who can explain how this really works.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(317 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
