Quote:
Originally Posted by KSig RC
Well, for state universities, this is a matter of public record. One that I have offhand (as it's a good example) is the University of Iowa. Their 2011 fiscal year athletic budget, as reported to the Board of Regents:
Iowa is a little different because it accepts no general-fund money from the school and is athletically self-sufficient, but for a (probably) second-tier athletic school, the numbers are staggering, and even these are dwarfed by the likes of Texas and Florida.
Football drives the train, though, so there's good reason why a Texas State or UL-Monroe wants in on that particular action: it's absurdly profitable. That profitability opens new doors - admissions requests go up, endowment and donations increase, etc.
I can understand, on some level, why DF and others feel this is "dirty money" but there are about a dozen better arguments to counter that (increased opportunity for non-traditional students, destruction of regionalism in the student population, etc etc etc), plus the tangible cash benefits so greatly outweigh any of the intangible negatives or "seedy feelings" in my mind that it becomes a no-brainer.
|
Doesn't actually look like it's a real gain. Iowa would probably save money by NOT having sports, men or women. That's not the right answer either, but it's really not about the fact that it's "dirty money" coming in, it's how it's spent, handled, and then how the students are prioritized - poorly - because of it.
Threaded Mode
