Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Despite the popular misconception, sports programs at many schools don't bring in cash for the school, the programs have to be subsidized by students. How absurd is it to require students to take out what is the equivalent of $1500 student loans per year that have to be paid back with interest to cover the cost of required "athletic fees"? I thought college was supposed to be about learning.
Not all schools are behemoth football programs like UM, Texas, etc. etc. Many schools put their students into even more debt just to pay for sports programs that the students will never play in or even care about. Ridiculous.
I'm a fan and supporter of college athletics but I have a problem when schools prohibit students from using the athletic facilities and reserve them for the use of college athletes. I'm familiar with a D-II school that turns the lights out in the main gymnasium on campus so that students can't use the gym. It is not even the gym where the university plays its basketball games. They reserve the weight room for three hours a day for athletes and then close it at 8PM when many students would like to use it. This is a school that loses money on sports and where a very small percentage of the students participate in varsity athletics.
There's plenty of schools that have profitable athletic programs. There's also several that have minimal or no athletic programs. If this is a serious concern, just choose one of those types of schools.
My university didn't have those sorts of fees - it was all rolled into the extracurricular fee (which was reasonable considering most students are active in a minimum of 2 or 3 clubs plus all of the activities of a residential campus - I believe about $300 a semester).
Then again, our most popular sports were things like Quiddich, extreme frisbee, and women's rugby. We're undefeated in football since 1960 (when it was banned from campus).
There's plenty of schools that have profitable athletic programs. There's also several that have minimal or no athletic programs. If this is a serious concern, just choose one of those types of schools.
Plenty of schools that have profitable athletic programs? USA Today did an analysis of 227 NCAA DI public schools over the period 2006-2011 and found that 7 of the 227 generated a profit. See NCAA college athletics department finances database
There are 347 colleges that are listed as Division I so this list does not include schools like Notre Dame, Standford, Duke, Brigham Young, Davidson, Gonzaga, Baylor, Rice and other private universities.
Another article Duke Athletics not profitable, NCAA says | The Chronicle said that "Just 14 of the 120 schools in the Football Bowl Subdivision made money from their athletic departments in the 2009 fiscal year, according to an Aug. 17 NCAA report."
The overwhelming majority of colleges have athletic programs. The majority of athletes compete at the D-III level. None of the DII, DIII or NAIA schools make a profit.
There's plenty of schools that have profitable athletic programs. There's also several that have minimal or no athletic programs. If this is a serious concern, just choose one of those types of schools.
Huh? Outside of the major sports conferences, none of the lesser conferences have profitable athletic programs. The reason is TV money. Colleges like VCU might have packed basketball arenas because they have winning programs, but the ticket fees and tourney money isn't enough to subsidize an entire sports program.
I always thought that students were subsidizing sports at a small amount (maybe $100 a year), and alumni were paying the bulk of it. But apparently that is not the case for schools without a rich alumni base (usually schools with superior academic reputation) and lesser known and ranked schools are screwing their students who could care less of the sports programs.
The articles mention that students think the fees relate to things like access to gyms, recreation leagues, and health clubs and don't realize that $1,500 of a $1,700 fee is for sports infrastructure.
That's insane for public schools that cater to middle class and poorer schools and borderline criminal. $6,000 to $7,500 in extra loans over 4-5 years to pay for a football, volleyball or basketball programs that students hardly attend?
If some fatcat alums want it, sure, make them pay for it. Poor students? Ouch.
Mega sports schools like Ohio State or Texas hardly charge students anything for sports, because alums pick up the bill with donations or sports tickets.
Nothing....our kids have a small athletic fee, $100/year I think, that gets them into all events on campus, athletic, arts, etc., for free. I'm sure their athletic program is in the hole, but they have happy alum that give big bucks to the school that not only helps keep the sports programs functioning, they also give very healthy academic scholarships....we are certainly getting more money from the college then we will ever give them....
Plenty of schools that have profitable athletic programs? USA Today did an analysis of 227 NCAA DI public schools over the period 2006-2011 and found that 7 of the 227 generated a profit. See NCAA college athletics department finances database
There are 347 colleges that are listed as Division I so this list does not include schools like Notre Dame, Standford, Duke, Brigham Young, Davidson, Gonzaga, Baylor, Rice and other private universities.
Another article Duke Athletics not profitable, NCAA says | The Chronicle said that "Just 14 of the 120 schools in the Football Bowl Subdivision made money from their athletic departments in the 2009 fiscal year, according to an Aug. 17 NCAA report."
The overwhelming majority of colleges have athletic programs. The majority of athletes compete at the D-III level. None of the DII, DIII or NAIA schools make a profit.
The 7 profitable schools figure is a little misleading because most of the power conference schools operate to break even. Having a slight year to year loss is no big deal, especially when they know they have big donations or TV contract money coming down the pike. I've heard there are about 40-50 schools that essentially have self funded sports programs. They may charge students nominal activity fees to gain access to sport program facilities or get free tickets to certain sporting events, but it isn't usually more than $100 a year. Nothing like the subsidies apparently charged by these lesser sports conferences.
On the grand scheme of things it's relatively insignificant.
If it's a big deal to you, then research your colleges and go to one that doesn't put as much money into it.
It's part of the fees, etc of going to school and part of school is providing such activities to their students. There were some I cared about and some I didn't across all levels ..... for example, we'd host a giant robotics competition that would shut down our gym for days didn't make money and most students didn't care about, we'd have a yearly concert and festival weekend that didn't make money and didn't appeal to all students, money would be pumped into concrete canoe competitions, developing a solar car, a lot with robotics right now ...... many of these things didn't make money and only served a narrow band of students.
However, they are all important to the university in advancing some of it's goals. Goals that when reached are for the better of the university population as a whole.
Not to mention a source of pride, fundraising and marketing for a school.
The first time I was able to see the campus of the university I attended was after they won an NCAA tournament basketball game .... they unfortunately haven't been back .... however, there was a huge lift in awareness to the university immediately following that.
Nothing....our kids have a small athletic fee, $100/year I think, that gets them into all events on campus, athletic, arts, etc., for free. I'm sure their athletic program is in the hole, but they have happy alum that give big bucks to the school that not only helps keep the sports programs functioning, they also give very healthy academic scholarships....we are certainly getting more money from the college then we will ever give them....
I'm not sure that's what the article is talking about. They are talking about schools that probably compete at Division I in most sports, have huge stadiums and arenas, large coaching staffs, and issue tons of scholarships, but don't generate a lot of TV, ticket or donation revenue.
I suspect it is the schools like the Mid American (i.e. Toledo), Atlantic 10 (i.e. Rhode Island), Big South (i.e. Florida International), Colonial (i.e. Old Dominion) etc. conferences where this is a big issue.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
