Harvard newspaper doesn't want a 4th sorority

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

At WORST, the effect is money-neutral, since the program takes in everything it needs to pay out. However, that ignores the associated profits that come with having fans in town to see games, the real value of national reputation, income and advertising from the Big Ten Network/other TV appearances, and assorted other benefits the school enjoys that are decidedly not money-neutral.

In fact, I can't see a single way in which Iowa would "save money" by eliminating sports. I can see dozens of ways in which they can and do capitalize on sports, though.

For a school like Iowa, who is at least break-even with its athletic programs, all of these ancillary benefits pile up purely into the profit category. I suspect that even a relatively large loss on sports still creates enough of the ancillary advantages to push the net total into a win for the school.

Now, step out of the mid-tier and into the OSUs and UTs of the world, and you're stacking money like it's your job. Thus, the haves/have-nots disparity - many schools get a tangible or ancillary benefit. Others bring in nine figures.

Yet many schools without football teams manage to draw students just fine. I'm not saying the system isn't working for Iowa, I'm just saying it COULD work differently just as well. And none of that even brings in the idea of paying student athletes for their time and effort at bringing the school $$$$. If all schools see is the money, then they're doing it wrong. Their priorities are out of whack, and maybe it's because they're not being financially supported by their states, but they're not a sports school, they're a university.

Also, when a budget matches up dollar to dollar like that, I flat out don't believe it. There's no way that's an accurate representation of money actually earned/spent.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

Also, when a budget matches up dollar to dollar like that, I flat out don't believe it. There's no way that's an accurate representation of money actually earned/spent.

The nature of a (non-profit, public) college budget is that projections have to match up to the dollar - I'm sure you'll understand why, if you consider the accounting issues for a bit.

Obviously they won't at the end of the year (although it will be close) - last year, I believe the final #s put a couple hundred grand back into the general fund, but I don't have a source readily available (just what I recall from the last time I used this example).

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

The nature of a (non-profit, public) college budget is that projections have to match up to the dollar - I'm sure you'll understand why, if you consider the accounting issues for a bit.

Obviously they won't at the end of the year (although it will be close) - last year, I believe the final #s put a couple hundred grand back into the general fund, but I don't have a source readily available (just what I recall from the last time I used this example).

Yeah I know, that's the intended budget, my point is that those are indeed estimates - the budget, not the financial reports for years past.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

Yeah I know, that's the intended budget, my point is that those are indeed estimates - the budget, not the financial reports for years past.

OK - well, here are the actuals for '08 (pg 10) and estimated for '09 (pg 42) showing an operating profit (latest of each I can find). I think you underestimate the accountability required of a public institution's projections here, but hey.

http://www.uiowa.edu/~fusbudg/2009_comp_fiscal_rpt.pdf
http://www.uiowa.edu/~fusbudg/2010_f...udget_narr.pdf

Hopefully that's soup-to-nuts enough?

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

OK - well, here are the actuals for '08 (pg 10) and estimated for '09 (pg 42) showing an operating profit (latest of each I can find). I think you underestimate the accountability required of a public institution's projections here, but hey.

http://www.uiowa.edu/~fusbudg/2009_comp_fiscal_rpt.pdf
http://www.uiowa.edu/~fusbudg/2010_f...udget_narr.pdf

Hopefully that's soup-to-nuts enough?

Ok, you're overestimating exactly how much I was emphasizing that point. It was an aside at best. Yay they're making a profit, that's nice for them, but it doesn't really matter to me as my position is based on principle more than profit.

And why would you think that I didn't think such reports existed? I'm well aware of reporting requirements for public institutions.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

And why would you think that I didn't think such reports existed? I'm well aware of reporting requirements for public institutions.

Your hand-waving of the initial data (which was intended only to show that the scale is in the hundreds of millions, which I think most people don't understand) and statement of disbelief of the numbers given is why I posted - I know you're smart enough to know this stuff exists, but you literally said "I don't believe ..." etc.

Your larger point, though, is that no amount of money is worth emphasizing money over principle? That seems ... awkward at best, since we can show that money furthers the ability to seek the things that colleges are designed to seek. Should schools stop (largely student-driven and uncompensated) research that lead to lucrative patents, as that isn't learning in its purest form? Aren't we ignoring the "life-learning" realities of modern colleges (who seek to take an active role in every part of student life) when we limit the type of education/profit connection to only the type of thing that happens in a classroom?

And what about the fact that football gives a very real educational opportunity to students who would otherwise not qualify for college at all?

Whether or not Title IX should apply to football programs in the way the statute is currently applied was our starting point, but I find it narrow-sighted to ignore the vast positives of major-college athletics while looking at the exceptionally small portion of actual students that are affected by the "seedy" parts of major-college football. We're literally talking 125 students out of 30,000.

[Drolefille]

[QUOTE=KSig RC;2030339]Your hand-waving of the initial data (which was intended only to show that the scale is in the hundreds of millions, which I think most people don't understand) and statement of disbelief of the numbers given is why I posted - I know you're smart enough to know this stuff exists, but you literally said "I don't believe ..." etc.[quote] Because budgets aren't the same thing as the reality.

Your larger point, though, is that no amount of money is worth emphasizing money over principle? That seems ... awkward at best, since we can show that money furthers the ability to seek the things that colleges are designed to seek. Should schools stop (largely student-driven and uncompensated) research that lead to lucrative patents, as that isn't learning in its purest form? Aren't we ignoring the "life-learning" realities of modern colleges (who seek to take an active role in every part of student life) when we limit the type of education/profit connection to only the type of thing that happens in a classroom?

I really don't see television deals as comparable to research, internships or out-of-the-classroom learning. The latter are for the primary purpose of learning, the former are for the money. See the difference?

And what about the fact that football gives a very real educational opportunity to students who would otherwise not qualify for college at all?

Hey, it's awesome, until you consider graduation rates aren't necessarily so hot and athletics are prioritized over scholarship even at non-D1 schools. How many people are we actually helping, and how many students are actually graduating with degrees and job skills rather than lost hopes at NFL/NBA/MLB stardom. I don't know that there's an answer.

Whether or not Title IX should apply to football programs in the way the statute is currently applied was our starting point, but I find it narrow-sighted to ignore the vast positives of major-college athletics while looking at the exceptionally small portion of actual students that are affected by the "seedy" parts of major-college football. We're literally talking 125 students out of 30,000.

I don't think I ignored the positives of college athletics, I've mentioned several times that they're important, and that they should exist, just not, in my opinion, in their current form. It is the prioritization of those 125 students OVER the 30,000 for the sake of the all mighty hand-egg that brings in the dough that bothers me.