The truth about funding athletics

[NSBF]

Agree to disagree! Money from the state is money from the state. Can't twist it to use for your own purposes, then use it against another institution.

ISU just seems to outline where they're money goes toward Athletics, and privates like BU don't.

I'm sure we could ask BU how much from student fees goes toward athletics and get an answer, or maybe not.

If they wanted everyone to know there would be more transparency.

[tornado]

Agree to disagree! Money from the state is money from the state. Can't twist it to use for your own purposes, then use it against another institution.
..

sure that's exactly what we're talking about...
there are no state dollars nor federal dollars that go to support Bradley -- only private funds..
If the state gives someone a scholarship then the recipient can use it any way he wants - thus if he goes to Bradley the money isn't being put in Bradley's pockets by the government but by the student -- big difference.
The only people who twist are those saying otherwise...
don't you think if the government sent $$ to Bradley or Creighton, or Bob Jones University that they'd demand to have a few of those private schools' rules changed..
yet they don't because they know what the word "private" means.....



It never fails...those who are embarrassed by the horrid shape of public education at all levels, from elementary to high school to college never fail to try to stretch logic and sanity so far as to try to make the argument that the private schools also get taxpayer dollars...

I am terribly sorry that you have to face the fact, though, but the private schools DO not get taxpayer dollars...
they don't want to!! They want to stay free of the entanglements and political absurdity (like what's happening at U of I) and they want to be free to run their private schools the way they want to...(click my signature and read about it)
But as I said, it never fails, those who hate private schools still try like crazy to throw weak little stones and make up ridiculous arguments..
but the "private schools get state dollars" argument failed decades ago and it is not true.

[tornado]

More...

"Financial data recently released by the NCAA show that only 14 college
athletic departments turned an operating profit in 2009..
.. only seven of these programs..have generated an operating profit in each
of the past five years"

"When athletic programs can’t pay their own way, they rely on institutions for
help in the form of student fees, transfers from general fund allocations and
state appropriations.
NCAA data show that the median subsidies — or the dollars provided to
balance athletic budgets — rose 25 percent from 2008, to more than $10
million in 2009."

http://www.ajc.com/opinion/college-sports-spending-out-615830.html?cxtype=ynews_rss

so -- there are only 7 colleges that haven't at some time in the past 5 years (and most do it heavily every year)
taken student fees and taxpayer money to support, bolster, and balance their athletic budgets
and pay all their staff in the athletic departments...
AND this uses only cash accounting, and fails, as I have said and Da Coach has said, to take into account
that at state schools, the value of the scholarship is way more than the actual cost - and the taxpayers
have funded the rest -- and the facilities everyone uses from the rooms, to the gyms, to the bathrooms
are also all paid for by taxpayer funds...and that fails to get into the accounting..

Thus, let's put an end to the ridiculous talk, some by people from our own conference, of having fully self-funded athletic departments....

[tornado]

another article on how colleges fund their athletics secretly by hiding the costs in the general students' billing for tuition......

"Hidden student fees diverted to college athletics"

"nearly $1,000 a year in (student) fees (go secretly) to the school's athletics department."
"Like most other schools in NCAA Division I, Radford relies on student fees to
help support ever-expanding athletics budgets. Many schools..do not itemize
where those fees go for those who pay the tuition bills
..The amounts going to athletics are soaring, and account for as much as 23
percent of the required annual bill for in-state students."
"Students were charged more than $795 million to support sports programs at
222 Division I public schools during the 2008-09 school year"

http://www.wkyc.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=149843&catid=3

...this story simply confirms what some already knew...even when schools like ISU claim that they do not use taxpayer funds or student fees for running or supporting the athletic department, they all do and those fees are hidden...


and this article was linked elsewhere on the board but it says likewise -- too much money is inappropriately taken from academics to run the sports for reasons of GREED!

http://education.newsweek.com/2010/09/22/the-case-against-college-athletic-recruiting.html

[tornado]

Here's a comment by the head of the NCAA that I find a little deceptive and interesting...

to me it sounds like he's using doublespeak and yet the press and ESPN seem to buy it and report it as fact...
BUT -- there's a real problem with what he's saying...

"NCAA president Mark Emmert: NCAA does not make 'tsunami of cash'"

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/news/story?id=6047149&campaign=rss&source=NCAAHeadlines

NCAA president is crying foul over any suggestion that NCAA acts on the basis of money -- and get this...
he's trying to claim the NCAA does not have a bunch of money and kinda suggests they're not making money at all!!

He says this:
"...that's a perception Emmert plans to change. The NCAA does not have
a "tsunami of cash," he said Friday, despite the organization's new, 14-year,
$10.6 billion deal with CBS ..

"There's confusion about that ...

But Michigan, Emmert pointed out, was among just 14 out of more than 1,100
NCAA member schools who made money on athletics last year. "The rest
didn't," Emmert said.

People think the NCAA is a business group chasing money. "We hear that all
the time," he said. "All they care about is money. They shape everything
around money."


BUT -- here's where Emmert's words are phony and false...
he is using the line that since the NCAA member schools don't make money on their athletic programs, then that's the same as claiming the NCAA itself doesn't make money!

Baloney -- the NCAA makes so much money that they are rolling in it and have that guarantee of billions of dollars into the future with their TV contracts.

How come ESPN can't see through his phony answer -- that's like saying I don't make any money because the store owners where I shop haven't retired as millionaires!
How does the schools not making money translate into the NCAA not making money??

[Murph]

I just had to mention this horrific waste of taxpayer money

Kind of like the taxpayers being stuck funding high school sports?

[tornado]

to some degree, yes...
I think each high school's athletic or PE department should be funded no more so than their Math or English department...I'm on your side on this one...

[jrish12]

I find it odd that none of the private schools (Bradley, Creighton, Duke, Notre Dame, USC) were listed when I know students receive funding from State and Federal sources to attend those schools.

Surely the privates are not on the honors system, and they don't use student fees to help fund athletics? I'm sure they are just less forthcoming about how they allocate fees.

I can see on ISU's site where they allocate funds for athletics from student fee's, BU's site is very vague on how fees are distributed.

Thats the luxury of being a private institution. If you look at any research on any college athletic program or college in general, most of the times private schools do not release any information to those studies, unless it is something that will make them look good. Its just how it is. T, just imagine what it is at the D II and D III levels of the NCAA, if only 7 D I schools were self sufficient....

The NCAA is the biggest bunch of hypocrites on the planet. They are rolling in money in Indianapolis and for them to say otherwise is just utter hogwash(id like to use a better term but it would get deleted )

I also agree with the high school sports comment. However, I dont think athletics and PE should be thrown in the same category. PE is in the curriculum, athletics are not. PE should get allocated money like math and science etc, athletics should not. Alot of schools are coming out with "pay to play" programs where if you want to play athletics you have to pay a fee to keep the team functional. Now, when I was at PND and on the baseball team, we always sold 50/50 at the football and basketball games as our fundraiser for the upcoming season. Things are just run completely different between private and public schools at any level of athletics, high school or college.

[tornado]

At my kids' school (not a public school) not one cent of money taken in by the school in tuition or in contributions is ever used on extracurriculars, sports, uniforms, and not even for hiring of refs, etc.
All of that is funded by gifts specifically given for that purpose, sponsorships, ticket sales, fundraisers, and each kid playing any sport is assessed an athletic fee if he wants to play.
There are also generous benefactors that even cover the fee for kids from poorer families and who also donate to refinish the gym floor, buy uniforms, cover extra costs, etc...
This is the way every school should do it, although I realize not every school has the full support of parents capable of helping....but that's partly due to the "entitlement" philosophy that pervades public schools.
Parents use the argument that since they are paying taxes why should they also pay extra for their kid to partake in what the school does?
Not all schools are this way - but some can't raise an extra dime from their families and parents who believe that just isn't their job to have to do.

[Murph]

I also agree with the high school sports comment. However, I dont think athletics and PE should be thrown in the same category. PE is in the curriculum, athletics are not. PE should get allocated money like math and science etc, athletics should not.

I also agree that Physical Education should always be included in a schools curriculum.

Isn't it ironic that some schools are considering doing away PE.

[jrish12]

I also agree that Physical Education should always be included in a schools curriculum.

Isn't it ironic that some schools are considering doing away PE.

I agree. For a little bit of my college career my major was Physical education. It is unbelievable that school boards look at cutting the one class that is actually good for a kid's life and health, not just his or her education. The stigma of "oh its just PE" makes it the scapegoat, when in actuality kids can benefit more from PE than they can from any history class.