Would university presidents (privately) say that there is an actual educational purpose to sponsoring athletic teams? I'm sure they would say so for public consumption, but do they really believe it?

Some would promote the "sound mind in a sound body" way of thinking. But if that were the true (or main) purpose, why wouldn't it be something promoted for all students, not just the ones who can run fast or jump high.

Others would probably tout the leadership and teamwork lessons sports provide. Those are valuable. But, again, shouldn't those be good lessons for all students, not just good athletes.

If they are being honest, they would probably acknowledge that the main (if not only) purpose of intercollegiate sports is to market the school to potential students, and more importantly, to potential alumni donors. This confession would justify recruiting, paying, and coddling the best athletes they can get.

It also means acknowledging that the main purpose for playing revenue sports in college is not to get an education, but to advance a career in sports beyond college. If the athlete also happens to get a good education in pursuit of that goal, that's a bonus. But for many, maintaining academic eligibility is little more than a job requirement, and the education they are exposed to, no matter how costly it would otherwise be if not for a scholarship, is not, and need not be, considered something of value.

I originally asked how would university presidents answer the question. A more telling answer would how do politicians/lawmakers look at this? Do they think the women's bowling team or archery team should be paid as employees? If so, why, and if not, why not?

To market your university.

The mission of elite educational institutions and the mission for the high revenue entertainment business cannot be logically merged into something coherent. Over the last 5-10 years most everyone involved has stopped lying that those missions could be merged and are being honest that high revenue sports are really just about the money and education is at best a secondary concern.

Having to pay athletes, which for many D-I schools (the bottom 200) means potentially more than doubling the budget, will see a lot of schools asking that very question, and determining if it is actually worth it for the marking return.

A great shake out is coming in the next four or five years. Some schools will drop athletics entirely, some will move to "club" level athletics, and nearly all schools will drop or move to "club" level many, even most, non-revenue sports. FCS football schools are the ones I'd most keep an eye on; this level could almost collapse entirely. D-II is going to need a complete revamping to avoid any hint of employment status (so far no lawsuits, as they have been in D-I, but D-II is not radically different in certain aspects of athlete expectations, which is a dangerous spot to be in).

Your SIU-E, Eastern Michigan, Cal State Fullerton type schools all have to ask if they get any real benefit. Does CSU Bakersfield or CSUN actually get any students they would not have had they no athletics at all? Ditto UC Riverside and UC Davis. Does it bring enough alumni donations to justify its continuation at a D-I level with the costs doubling due to NIL and employee payments (including Title IX "tax" of paying an equal number of women who add $0 to the bottom line)?

A lot of questions will be asked.

IMO…

Brand marketing is the primary objective. The front porch argument. It helps transform students into boosters.

Diversity and inclusion have become a huge objectives. Athletes are not just talented, but incredibly diverse…they easily become role models. Athletes challenge universities to think differently about admissions criteria and help break biases and stereotypes.

Revenue generation is always a component. The university community needs entertainment and vibrancy.

I can't imagine there are university administrators who still truly believe there's a serious educational purpose to D1 college football or basketball that couldn't be served more effectively and at much lower cost in other ways.

Once upon a time I was the biggest pro-FBS Idaho guy on the planet. Now I don't care at all that we're FCS and just feel sorry for all but about 10 programs and for college sports in general.

To put money in the pockets of administrators.

The primary purpose of offering athletics at universities is educational. A well-rounded education benefits mind and body.

Secondary goals:
enriching campus life
training tomorrow's coaches and teachers
helping the gifted launch careers
raising funds (where possible) to further campus activities
creating a positive public image for the campus community

It's a mistake to look only at a campus's revenue sports and pro-prep programs and assume 'That's all there is.' Campuses encourage student physical education through club programs, intramural teams, gym access, open-access weight rooms, swimming facilities, tennis and basketball courts, and special events. It's also a mistake to assume physical education on campus is limited to competitive sport. Campuses offer programs in cheerleading, athletic support bands, dance of all sorts, drill teams and colour guards, health and nutrition education, hiking clubs, scuba clubs, and even acrobatic circus performance.

Thanks to basketball players at Dartmouth, we are learning more about the legal parameters surrounding the word 'employee.' The ruling defines the term far less by material 'pay' as by obligations placed on students. We may soon find that not only may participants in non-revenue sports qualify as 'employees,' so may participants in bands, dance teams, and cheer squads. Time will tell.



Trapeze performers, Florida State Flying High Circus
(Tallahassee Democrat)

(03-20-2024 12:28 PM)ken d Wrote:  Would university presidents (privately) say that there is an actual educational purpose to sponsoring athletic teams? I'm sure they would say so for public consumption, but do they really believe it?

College is about education and the "other education". For some kids, that other education is smokin' pot in the dorm or going to a bunch of frat parties. For others, it's getting involved in campus organizations and volunteering to help the community. For others, it's continuing their athletic career, while also representing their school honorably and providing one more reason for potential students to consider the school. I'd consider Alabama in Football and Duke in basketball as great examples of providing a reason for potential students to consider a school. Alabama isn't particularly strong Academically, yet they pull tons of kids out Texas and, really, all over the country, based upon their football excellence and then reinforced with their easy to understand and extremely generous financial aid packages. Duke is great Academically, but they're not as great as Stanford, MIT or Ivies, so for their peer group, they're perhaps considered a half step behind. More Northwestern than Harvard let's say. But Duke has really interesting Basketball, something no other T1 school can offer. It's probably not the game changer that football is for Alabama, but it's something.

On the lower end, Athletics in D2, D3, or NAIA schools can still be valuable to a school. They offer something for the students to rally around, and provide a great excuse for the kids to get together regularly without needing alcohol to have fun.

As far as "educational" purpose as in "offering athletics allows us to get more kids better grades in math or science"...well, no. But it can help to recruit more applicants and it can help to make those applicants lifelong supporters of their alma mater, 2 things that are extraordinarily important in the competitive educational environment of today.

edit: I answered the question in the title and in your first 2 sentences, rather than the "money sports" question that it morphed into at the end.

There's a mission statement and the NCAA PSA promo stuff that is kinda true, but we all know the reality.

At the end of the day, college sports is what it is because "it's just dumb not to."

Everyone wants college athletes to be paid and be employees, because the dollar values are so huge. But it's the exact same model that little league and high school has, just at a massively increased price.

If someone wants to buy tickets, it's just dumb not to sell tickets.
If someone wants to pay you to televise your games, it's just dumb not to.
If you can afford things that help you win -- like expensive coaches, facilities, charter flights, etc -- it's just dumb not to.

(03-20-2024 12:28 PM)ken d Wrote:  Would university presidents (privately) say that there is an actual educational purpose to sponsoring athletic teams? I'm sure they would say so for public consumption, but do they really believe it?

Some would promote the "sound mind in a sound body" way of thinking. But if that were the true (or main) purpose, why wouldn't it be something promoted for all students, not just the ones who can run fast or jump high.

Others would probably tout the leadership and teamwork lessons sports provide. Those are valuable. But, again, shouldn't those be good lessons for all students, not just good athletes.

If they are being honest, they would probably acknowledge that the main (if not only) purpose of intercollegiate sports is to market the school to potential students, and more importantly, to potential alumni donors. This confession would justify recruiting, paying, and coddling the best athletes they can get.

It also means acknowledging that the main purpose for playing revenue sports in college is not to get an education, but to advance a career in sports beyond college. If the athlete also happens to get a good education in pursuit of that goal, that's a bonus. But for many, maintaining academic eligibility is little more than a job requirement, and the education they are exposed to, no matter how costly it would otherwise be if not for a scholarship, is not, and need not be, considered something of value.

I originally asked how would university presidents answer the question. A more telling answer would how do politicians/lawmakers look at this? Do they think the women's bowling team or archery team should be paid as employees? If so, why, and if not, why not?

The educational purpose was the primary reason for it at first and on into the 50s. There always was and still is a strong component of bringing the campus together and keeping alumni involved.

But at some point for Division I (not so much NAIA, Division II and III), it became a means to market the university. That is the biggest purpose now, although getting alumni donations is still important. The presidents and deans have suites where they court potential donors.

Very few of the student athletes go pro. Even at Kentucky, Duke, UNC and Kansas, most basketball players do not go pro. The percentage is even smaller with the elite football programs. And some students are like someone I knew who used his football scholarship to get into an elite public, played his freshman year, and then just stayed as a student, knowing that was a strong possibility all along.

(03-20-2024 12:28 PM)ken d Wrote:  Would university presidents (privately) say that there is an actual educational purpose to sponsoring athletic teams? I'm sure they would say so for public consumption, but do they really believe it?

Some would promote the "sound mind in a sound body" way of thinking. But if that were the true (or main) purpose, why wouldn't it be something promoted for all students, not just the ones who can run fast or jump high.

Easier with 2,000 students than 62,000, or course. Look at some of the schools with 30 or more sports offered: what do they share in common? A broad based athletic and academic program.

Harvard: 43
Stanford: 38
Cornell: 37
Princeton: 35
Yale: 35
Dartmouth: 34
Penn: 33
Columbia: 31
Georgetown: 30
California: 30

Then look at the schools with the bare minimum of NCAA Division I programs, and ask yourself, why?

(03-20-2024 12:28 PM)ken d Wrote:  Would university presidents (privately) say that there is an actual educational purpose to sponsoring athletic teams? I'm sure they would say so for public consumption, but do they really believe it?

Some would promote the "sound mind in a sound body" way of thinking. But if that were the true (or main) purpose, why wouldn't it be something promoted for all students, not just the ones who can run fast or jump high.

Others would probably tout the leadership and teamwork lessons sports provide. Those are valuable. But, again, shouldn't those be good lessons for all students, not just good athletes.

If they are being honest, they would probably acknowledge that the main (if not only) purpose of intercollegiate sports is to market the school to potential students, and more importantly, to potential alumni donors. This confession would justify recruiting, paying, and coddling the best athletes they can get.

It also means acknowledging that the main purpose for playing revenue sports in college is not to get an education, but to advance a career in sports beyond college. If the athlete also happens to get a good education in pursuit of that goal, that's a bonus. But for many, maintaining academic eligibility is little more than a job requirement, and the education they are exposed to, no matter how costly it would otherwise be if not for a scholarship, is not, and need not be, considered something of value.

I originally asked how would university presidents answer the question. A more telling answer would how do politicians/lawmakers look at this? Do they think the women's bowling team or archery team should be paid as employees? If so, why, and if not, why not?

Originally---the purpose was entirely fun entertainment for the undergrads. It then morphed into a way to keep alums connected and donating to the universities. It was like that largely until the Oklahoma BOR vs the NCAA case that made TV exposure and the dollars TV could contribute to the school coffers more important. Now its largely about direct revenue---and only tangentially about fun for the undergrads and alums.

(03-20-2024 01:21 PM)Gitanole Wrote:  The primary purpose of offering athletics at universities is educational. A well-rounded education benefits mind and body.

Secondary goals:
enriching campus life
training tomorrow's coaches and teachers
helping the gifted launch careers
raising funds (where possible) to further campus activities
creating a positive public image for the campus community

It's a mistake to look only at a campus's revenue sports and pro-prep programs and assume 'That's all there is.' Campuses encourage student physical activity through club programs, intramural teams, gym access, open-access weight rooms, swimming facilities, tennis and basketball courts, and special events. It's also a mistake to assume physical activity on campus is limited to competitive sport. Campuses offer programs in cheerleading, athletic support bands, dance of all sorts, drill teams and colour guards, health and nutrition education, hiking clubs, scuba clubs, and even acrobatic circus performance.

Thanks to basketball players at Dartmouth, we are learning more about the legal parameters surrounding the word 'employee.' The ruling defines the term far less by material 'pay' as by obligations placed on students. We may soon find that not only may participants in non-revenue sports qualify as 'employees,' so may participants in bands, dance teams, and cheer squads. Time will tell.



Trapeze performers, Florida State Flying High Circus
(Tallahassee Democrat)

You forgot to say "as defined by one NLRB judge". In the world of common sense, it's very tough to differentiate between a Dartmouth basketball player and a kid on a high school basketball team. If anything, most high school basketball coaches likely exercise more control over their kids than Dartmouth's basketball coach. They don't win very much, in part, because the coach doesn't require them to eat/live/breathe basketball 24/7. My high school had "optional" Christmas break workouts and Christmas tournaments. They gave us towels for our own personal usage, certainly those had a value. Sweats. Practice uniforms. Game uniforms. It wasn't $3k, but it was also 30 years ago. I bet many high schools give $1k or more worth of benefits to their basketball players.

You can make a much stronger argument for a basketball player at FSU or A&M. Our kids are basically pros already, they just get to wear our colors for a few years before going to play in the NBA or Greece, Australia, etc. The Coaches actually do exercise significant control over them. The problem is, even if Dartmouth appeals this case all the way to the SC, it won't necessarily tell us anything about the actual football and basketball factory schools b/c the SC will make a very narrowly tailored judgement based upon the particulars of Dartmouth and perhaps their conference. People will try to read the tea leaves as they did with Alston, but, really, we don't know what's going to happen with House and other lawsuits currently winding their way through the courts, and we certainly don't know if the Supreme Court would actually force schools against their will to pay kids, especially when 95% of the schools can't afford to do so. Another problem is that the NLRB has no authority over State Institutions, ie, almost all of the P4, so they have to go after one of the 95% of schools that actually do still have amateur athletes.

All in all, I'd say that the Dartmouth case is interesting but not as impactful as other litigation currently under way.

The purpose of college sports is to generate profit for those that collect profit from its existence. It's the same purpose McDonald's has and the same purpose Arby's has.

Reading any more into it than this is severely missing the point. But if you are reading more into college sports, I have a bunch of swampland I'm looking to unload with your name on it. It's just 45 easy payments of $1,000. I'm practically giving it away at these rates, but I'm a sucker for the sentimental types. Okay, okay, I'll sell it for just 40 easy payments of $1,000. You really tugged at my heartstrings on this one.

Some comments here represent Exhibit A for a mistake I earlier warned against: they show a preoccupation with the shiny objects that catch the public eye as if no other campus activity existed. It's a common mistake. (I sometimes wonder how many college sports fans have ever actually been on a college campus.)

Even so: Alumni graduate from universities, not football teams. If suddenly all 'revenue sports' disappeared—if that handful of activities that have caught on with the public suddenly lost their popularity—athletic activity and physical education would still exist on university campuses. The educational mission goes on.

Paid employees should be productive. In the entertainment industry, which sports is, that means selling tickets, bringing in more money for the company or organization than you are cost to employ.

Since Bowling and Archery do not bring money to the University, to pay the athletes is simply a luxury, like paying models to come to the faculty meeting and pose silently. It's just decoration. Quite honestly that is the case for nearly every women's sport sponsored (and most of the non-revenue men's sports for that matter) with only a handful of exceptions (e.g., UConn WBB).

The original purpose of these sports was mostly to drive up the entry costs to be in the 1-A football club. But this purpose is now fulfilled by the sheer cost of FBS and the scarcity of media contracts, effectively performing the gatekeeping now. These sports are about to rendered a rich man's hobby expense, nothing more.

(03-20-2024 05:43 PM)Sparty Baby 84 Wrote:  The purpose of college sports is to generate profit for those that collect profit from its existence. It's the same purpose McDonald's has and the same purpose Arby's has.

The one major difference is that colleges and athletics departments are non-profit. So it's not "collect profit," it's "collect revenue that can be re-invested into things that make you better and win more so you can collect more revenue, that can be re-invested into things that make you better and win more so you can collect more revenue (infinity mirror)." But yes, exactly.

(03-20-2024 06:49 PM)JSchmack Wrote:  

(03-20-2024 05:43 PM)Sparty Baby 84 Wrote:  The purpose of college sports is to generate profit for those that collect profit from its existence. It's the same purpose McDonald's has and the same purpose Arby's has.

The one major difference is that colleges and athletics departments are non-profit. So it's not "collect profit," it's "collect revenue that can be re-invested into things that make you better and win more so you can collect more revenue, that can be re-invested into things that make you better and win more so you can collect more revenue (infinity mirror)."

.... and all the people doing that infinity reinvesting are unpaid volunteers?

This is starting to sound like Brewster's Millions.