(03-29-2017 07:30 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(03-27-2017 12:13 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Of course ADs disagree, as their jobs/careers

I was referring to athletic depts, when I used the abbreviation "AD". Sorry for the confusion.

(03-27-2017 12:13 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  we could survey alumni and ask them whether they anticipate reducing donations to the university if athletics were scaled back to a no-subsidy basis, etc.

Donations are tangible.

Again, I'm talking intangible. Alumni pride, for example.

If having athletics that compete well increases alumni pride in their alma mater, that justifies its existence, even though it needs a subsidy.

Whether "athletic directors" or "athletic departments", the point still stands: Both obviously have a vested interest in the university thinking that subsidized athletics is "worth it".

As for the bolded part, that is just your opinion, and it strikes me as a shallow one. We could ask alumni, or the whole university community: On a 1-10 scale, how much of an increase in "alumni pride" is worth how many tangible dollars taken from the wallets of students? Is a tiny increase worth $100 while a big pride boost is worth $500? Sheesh.

(03-30-2017 08:57 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Both obviously have a vested interest in the university thinking that subsidized athletics is "worth it".

The university has a vested interest in its departments, by definition.

(03-30-2017 08:57 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  that is just your opinion, and it strikes me as a shallow one

Thinking that a school should cut its athletic dept if it can't operate without a subsidy is just an opinion, and IMO a shallow one. And, none of them agree with you. They agree with me, apparently.

(03-30-2017 08:57 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  We could ask alumni, or the whole university community: On a 1-10 scale, how much of an increase in "alumni pride" is worth how many tangible dollars taken from the wallets of students?

The students vote for increases upon themselves. Not taken, that is false.

Furthermore, I reject on first principles that student fees supporting athletics are a subsidy.

If students say "we want to pay $100 per semester, to fund a nationally competitive athletics dept, because we think that would be a nice thing and so we want to pay for it", then that is that. Nothing more can be said.


A subsidy is more like "we projected to bring in $30M in revenue, but only brought in $29.5 ... please send $500k to the dept from the general fund". That's a subsidy.

(03-30-2017 09:11 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(03-30-2017 08:57 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Both obviously have a vested interest in the university thinking that subsidized athletics is "worth it".

The university has a vested interest in its departments, by definition.

(03-30-2017 08:57 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  that is just your opinion, and it strikes me as a shallow one

Thinking that a school should cut its athletic dept if it can't operate without a subsidy is just an opinion, and IMO a shallow one. And, none of them agree with you. They agree with me, apparently.

(03-30-2017 08:57 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  We could ask alumni, or the whole university community: On a 1-10 scale, how much of an increase in "alumni pride" is worth how many tangible dollars taken from the wallets of students?

The students vote for increases upon themselves. Not taken, that is false.

1) Is nonsensical. You said "athletic depts" disagree with me. Of course they do, as their existence is on the line.

2) Subsidies take many forms - direct student fees, distribution of centralized university funds, etc.. And the funding mechanisms vary. In some cases, students do vote for fees to subsidize athletics. But not always:

"Battles over fees have triggered campus-wide referenda. In 2008, at California State University, Fresno, students voted against an increase from $7 to $50 per semester; the university president overrode that result and upped the fee to subsidize athletics to $32 per semester. At Utah State University, about 53 percent of students voting approved a 100 percent increase from $113 to $243 annually to help lift the university’s athletics department out of debt. In 2009, students at the University of New Orleans, a non-football-playing Division I institution, soundly rejected a doubling of student fees for athletics from about $200 per year to nearly $400."

And regarding first principles:

Even in those cases where students vote to subsidize excessive athletic spending, such as at Utah State above, that's merely less onerous than cases where the administration does it without student approval, but it doesn't absolve the subsidy from condemnation. It's wrong for a majority of students to compel a minority of students to pay athletic fees, so the only truly moral and valid kind of subsidy would be where the individual student decides to voluntarily pay such a fee, e.g., when paying their registration, they check a box indicating they will pay $100 more or whatever to go to the athletic department.

Everything else is tainted with mission corruption.

(03-30-2017 09:29 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  You said "athletic depts" disagree with me. Of course they do, as their existence is on the line.

No athletic dept is going to voluntarily agree to dissolve itself. You are correct, on that.

You hold an opinion that universities should dissolve their athletic depts if they don't meet a certain set of conditions, and no universities agree with you on that opinion.

(03-30-2017 09:29 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  "Battles over fees have triggered campus-wide referenda. In 2008, at California State University, Fresno, students voted against an increase from $7 to $50 per semester; the university president overrode that result and upped the fee to subsidize athletics to $32 per semester. At Utah State University, about 53 percent of students voting approved a 100 percent increase from $113 to $243 annually to help lift the university’s athletics department out of debt. In 2009, students at the University of New Orleans, a non-football-playing Division I institution, soundly rejected a doubling of student fees for athletics from about $200 per year to nearly $400."

I don't agree with the Fresno St decision.

The Utah St and New Orleans votes prove me point, though.

(03-30-2017 09:29 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  but it doesn't absolve the subsidy from condemnation

It does, 100%.

The students voted for it. That's all that can be said about it.

(03-30-2017 09:29 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  It's wrong for a majority of students to compel a minority of students to pay athletic fees

Absurd. That's like saying its wrong for a majority of voters to compel a minority to pay taxes for roads.

No one is forcing that minority to go to school there.

Revenues does not mean making a profit for the department. Look at both California and Michigan? Both big strong names in college sports. Both schools are bleeding money. You would think Michigan would be making a profit which they are not. Changes in the NCAA rules, realignment issues and be more inclusiveness in all sports could help all colleges and universities out.

(03-30-2017 09:41 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(03-30-2017 09:29 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  It's wrong for a majority of students to compel a minority of students to pay athletic fees

Absurd. That's like saying its wrong for a majority of voters to compel a minority to pay taxes for roads.

No one is forcing that minority to go to school there.

Wow, so much incorrect information and values skew from you in that post but this statement takes the cake.

"That minority" shouldn't have to make a choice between having money taken to pay for athletics or choosing another school. That's about as warped as higher education values can get.

(04-01-2017 01:04 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  "That minority" shouldn't have to make a choice between having money taken to pay for athletics or choosing another school. That's about as warped as higher education values can get.

Who are you putting on a show for???

That's really no different than saying "I don't take any classes in the English and Biology depts, so I want my tuition prorated since I shouldn't have to support those depts."

Bugger off.