Me watch foobaw today

I wonder--why is it worth it? Is the best and highest purpose of a public university to field a winning football team?

That $8 million in the tank every year could have funded quite a few scholarships. I would have coached the football team for $5 a week and a six-pack of beer. Of course, they would have lost every game, but so what?

Then get rid of every women's college sports teams in America.  Maybe five of the thousands of womens's college turn a tiny profit.................possibly none.  Hundreds of men's football and basketball teams make money.  When Indianapolis' own Butler University went to the NCAA basketball final back to back years about a decade ago, they got a increase in applications by 41%.  This allowed for Butler to improve the caliber of student at the school.  The charitable donations that the school received increase substantially, amounting tens of millions, if not over a hundred million dollars.

The men's basketball teams makes money so that Butler can field non-revenue teams such as baseball, wrestling, track and field, and every women's team across America.

What year was this, Kevin.

To be fair - most schools seperate the sports program from the rest of the University.    So the sports program is largely funded by alumni donations given for that specific purpose. 

For many years New York had regulations around their public universities that primarily only allowed for academic scholarships.... and only very limited amounts could be alotted for sports scholarships.    As a result, their sports teams always sucked.    They still largely do - but now that the regulation has  changed they are more competitive.    But "so what", you might say.

The moral of the story has nothing to do with the success of the sports teams.   Schools with good sports programs get more money in general from all alumni.    You'll find alot more alumni of Michigan State buying sweatshirts, ball caps, bumper stickers.... and making general contributions than alumni of Niagara U.    And all that memorabilia also acts as free advertising.    It might be sad that football motivates people more than math when it comes to giving money - but its truth. 

Yeah, universities are supposed to be educational institutions, not entertainment venues or sports franchises--but that's the way it turns out. U of Oregon is a terrific university--but it's nationally recognized primarily for its successful football team, which seems bizarre to me. Our national priorities are fucked up.

Alumni should donate even if the football team goes 0-11 and loses every game by seven touchdowns. But again, that's not the way things are. And that is also fucked up.

Also contrast the fame a star football player gets with the fame the best students get. Which of the two are accomplishing more? Which of the two are fulfilling the actual mission of the university, for which it was created? Which will ultimately benefit society more?

I think it's this anti-intellectual bias in our country that is at the core of the Trump Asshole movement. We doesn't wanna think. We just wants to watch football.

Kevin, what year did the Oregon football teams lose money?

I'm not going to supply you with personal information. I've already seen what you Trumpers are capable of doing. Stalker and Charles tried to track me down, threatening physical violence (they failed). I don't know if you're equally a psycho.

Woe is little ole me, right Der Fuhrer?  

I have zero interest in tracker you down, Kevin.  I suspect that the year you speak of that Oregon's football team made money, yet the athletic department did not.  

Suspect all you want. Why do you care, unless you want to make some stupid point?

You can look up, if you want, whether college football teams usually make or lose money. You'll find that they almost always lose money, and I'm talking about football teams exclusive of the athletic departments as a whole. It's certainly true that they bring in revenues, but those aren't enough to pay for the often massive expenses the teams rack up--aside from coaches' salaries, upkeep of stadiums, etc. etc.

Alumni donations don't enter into it because you can't say that those donations are made exclusively because of the football team. Also, alumni donations could be channeled to other purposes rather than being soaked up by the football team's shortfall.

I researched the exact situation you describe. I obtained the budgets for the athletic department and for each program. There was no program that returned positive net revenue. The men's and women's basketball, baseball/softball, track, etc. etc. etc. teams--they all lost money. But the football team dwarfed all others in net revenue loss, even though it also dwarfed all others in gross revenue. Its expenses, including the million-dollar coach, were huge.

I spent 20+ hours researching and writing this for my article. You can believe me or not. I don't give a shit either way.