Interested in Opinions

https://www.yahoo.com/news/faculty-l...103047447.html

Colleges looking to do away with sports. I can see it one way, or another. Interested in the take from others, as I really think it depends on the underlying reason for wanting to do it - but I have a hard time believing some (not all) are doing it for less than noble reasons.

Points that got my attention:
"When college leaders were surveyed in 2009 by the landmark Knight Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics, one respondent expressed this prevailing attitude among so many in the ivory tower: “There’s too much identification of a university with non-academic aspects, distracting from the values of higher education and from desirable values in society.”

"In a piece for The Atlantic, Columbia sociology professor Jonathan Cole was even more blunt. “Admitting too many athletes,” he insisted, means “denying admissions to . . . future artists and writers and political scientists and economists,” which “deprives these universities of the greatest possible diversity of students.”



I disagree with both the above statements. Could go more into why, but intrigued to hear peoples take on this, as can go either way, depending on ones intentions or thought process.

Thoughts?

Just another attack on males and masculinity as well as the poor.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ~Rocktar~

Just another attack on males and masculinity as well as the poor.

---

https://i.imgur.com/CpxKZ1w.png

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ashliana

https://i.imgur.com/CpxKZ1w.png

---

And the moron checks in with nothing to add to the conversation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ~Rocktar~

And the moron checks in with nothing to add to the conversation.

---

Psst. Your comment didn't add anything to the conversation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ashliana

Psst. Your comment didn't add anything to the conversation.

---

Retard says what?

That being the only response you were left with pretty much says it all. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ashliana

That being the only response you were left with pretty much says it all. :)

---

No, it's just triggering to you, funny to me and takes very little effort which is still more than you deserve.

:rofl: You don't seem to know what triggers anyone. Sorry you were butthurt about your retarded comment being laughed at, though. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shaps

https://www.yahoo.com/news/faculty-l...103047447.html

Colleges looking to do away with sports. I can see it one way, or another. Interested in the take from others, as I really think it depends on the underlying reason for wanting to do it - but I have a hard time believing some (not all) are doing it for less than noble reasons.

Points that got my attention:
"When college leaders were surveyed in 2009 by the landmark Knight Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics, one respondent expressed this prevailing attitude among so many in the ivory tower: “There’s too much identification of a university with non-academic aspects, distracting from the values of higher education and from desirable values in society.”

"In a piece for The Atlantic, Columbia sociology professor Jonathan Cole was even more blunt. “Admitting too many athletes,” he insisted, means “denying admissions to . . . future artists and writers and political scientists and economists,” which “deprives these universities of the greatest possible diversity of students.”



I disagree with both the above statements. Could go more into why, but intrigued to hear peoples take on this, as can go either way, depending on ones intentions or thought process.

Thoughts?

---

The only colleges that would do this are schools with no name athletic departments. The highest paid state employee in my state is the head coach for the Hawkeyes.

College sports brings in money that pays for academic scholarships.

It would actually suck if they did this, I would probably stop watching football and basketball all together. I haven't watched the NBA since the Jordan era.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Neveragain

The only colleges that would do this are schools with no name athletic departments. The highest paid state employee in my state is the head coach for the Hawkeyes.

---

Did you read it? These aren't no names....

"Dozens of universities — including Brown, Michigan State, William & Mary, Iowa, and George Washington — have abruptly eliminated scores of athletic teams this year, in sports including swimming, tennis, gymnastics, lacrosse, rowing, wrestling, and track and field."

"Setting the worst example of all, surely, is Stanford University and its president, Marc Tessier-Lavigne. The school recently announced that it would be cutting eleven varsity sports, most of which had produced multiple Olympic champions. The school’s reasoning? Stanford can’t afford it."

"When Dartmouth College announced its own program cuts, the athletic director, Harry Sheehy, icily revealed why he wouldn’t consult the students he was harming. “I know it sounds like the right thing to do but no school will . . . vet the decision to coaches and players [because] we knew it wouldn’t be welcomed.”

Seems more like they want to get rid of all sports, except the ones that make them money with the major media companies - which seems antithetical to the whole concept of sports and scholastics in my opinion.

They are looking at cutting sports that don't make money. This happens all the time.

The cynic in me suggest that this might be an end run around Title 9 for college sports, not that I have an issue with that. Public universities I can see enforcing Title 9, but private universities, I think it is a load of crap. When the government can dictate to an entity how they do business it is no longer a private enterprise. And before all you start screaming the government and about regulatory issues, they are not the same thing and if you cannot see why then you are just a dumbass and no one can help you.

Title 9 has been an abysmal failure and only hurt mostly disadvantage and poor men.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shaps

Did you read it? These aren't no names....

"Dozens of universities — including Brown, Michigan State, William & Mary, Iowa, and George Washington — have abruptly eliminated scores of athletic teams this year, in sports including swimming, tennis, gymnastics, lacrosse, rowing, wrestling, and track and field."

"Setting the worst example of all, surely, is Stanford University and its president, Marc Tessier-Lavigne. The school recently announced that it would be cutting eleven varsity sports, most of which had produced multiple Olympic champions. The school’s reasoning? Stanford can’t afford it."

"When Dartmouth College announced its own program cuts, the athletic director, Harry Sheehy, icily revealed why he wouldn’t consult the students he was harming. “I know it sounds like the right thing to do but no school will . . . vet the decision to coaches and players [because] we knew it wouldn’t be welcomed.”

Seems more like they want to get rid of all sports, except the ones that make them money with the major media companies - which seems antithetical to the whole concept of sports and scholastics in my opinion.

---

Universities are a type of business, are they not? Don’t they want to earn money and cover their expenses? What’s wrong with cutting cost of a sports program that makes little to no money, or possibly loses money?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Solkern

Universities are a type of business, are they not? Don’t they want to earn money and cover their expenses? What’s wrong with cutting cost of a sports program that makes little to no money, or possibly loses money?

---

Good points, Gelston also made this observation.

Why I'm asking to discuss it. I think the underlying reason for such a move matters, and from the quotes they decided to put into the article and that I highlighted... it doesn't feel like it's about money.

It might sound stupid to some - but hear me out (not saying it is or isn't the reason).... Sports are one of the last true meritocracies. It develops and encourages sportsmanship, fair play, competition, and accepting defeat. All very valuable lessons. It's not the end all be all of course with that regards, but it has a huge impact.

Even when a group coalesced and garnered enough funds to support a schools full sports program, it was still denied. So money is not the underlying issue from my perspective. Something else is going on.

"By Stanford’s own accounting, cutting eleven teams as planned would save about $4 million per year. Yet when the school’s athletes raised $30 million to fund the programs, the administration said it wasn’t good enough."

I'll toss an idea out of what I think it is: Social Engineering - been going on a long while, has happened throughout history - this is just the new version in conjunction with social media. A docile citizenry is the desired end state.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shaps

Did you read it? These aren't no names....

"Dozens of universities — including Brown, Michigan State, William & Mary, Iowa, and George Washington — have abruptly eliminated scores of athletic teams this year, in sports including swimming, tennis, gymnastics, lacrosse, rowing, wrestling, and track and field."

"Setting the worst example of all, surely, is Stanford University and its president, Marc Tessier-Lavigne. The school recently announced that it would be cutting eleven varsity sports, most of which had produced multiple Olympic champions. The school’s reasoning? Stanford can’t afford it."

"When Dartmouth College announced its own program cuts, the athletic director, Harry Sheehy, icily revealed why he wouldn’t consult the students he was harming. “I know it sounds like the right thing to do but no school will . . . vet the decision to coaches and players [because] we knew it wouldn’t be welcomed.”

Seems more like they want to get rid of all sports, except the ones that make them money with the major media companies - which seems antithetical to the whole concept of sports and scholastics in my opinion.

---

I actually didn't read the article. :shrug:

Iowa or Iowa state getting rid of wrestling?... Hell will freeze over first.

https://usopm.org/wp-content/uploads...-1920-16x9.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shaps

Good points, Gelston also made this observation.

Why I'm asking to discuss it. I think the underlying reason for such a move matters, and from the quotes they decided to put into the article and that I highlighted... it doesn't feel like it's about money.

It might sound stupid to some - but hear me out (not saying it is or isn't the reason).... Sports are one of the last true meritocracies. It develops and encourages sportsmanship, fair play, competition, and accepting defeat. All very valuable lessons. It's not the end all be all of course with that regards, but it has a huge impact.

Even when a group coalesced and garnered enough funds to support a schools full sports program, it was still denied. So money is not the underlying issue from my perspective. Something else is going on.

"By Stanford’s own accounting, cutting eleven teams as planned would save about $4 million per year. Yet when the school’s athletes raised $30 million to fund the programs, the administration said it wasn’t good enough."

I'll toss an idea out of what I think it is: Social Engineering - been going on a long while, has happened throughout history - this is just the new version in conjunction with social media. A docile citizenry is the desired end state.

---

Certain sports make money. Generally Basketball and Football raise the most. Basketball is the cheapest one to fund, generally, so it usually sees big gains. Football costs a bit more, but if you have a good enough team to get into a bowl game every year you'll be making very good money. Baseball can make money too, but it is harder. The remainder of the sports really don't make anything and are almost wholly supported by the other sports.

Point here, the SEC is one of the richest conferences in the NCAA, they don't do wrestling though. It doesn't make anything.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelston

Certain sports make money. Generally Basketball and Football raise the most. Basketball is the cheapest one to fund, generally, so it usually sees big gains. Football costs a bit more, but if you have a good enough team to get into a bowl game every year you'll be making very good money. Baseball can make money too, but it is harder. The remainder of the sports really don't make anything and are almost wholly supported by the other sports.

Point here, the SEC is one of the richest conferences in the NCAA, they don't do wrestling though. It doesn't make anything.

---

Fully agree man. You're spot on with that assessment.

With what colleges charge, etc. I don't think it's a money issue - and this might just be a difference of viewpoint fundamentally which is okay - I think sports, especially amateur sports during a persons developmental years are extremely important. They provide a multitude of benefits.

Colleges back in the day had those programs and they weren't making money, or nearly as much for the University, but they still had them. Because those benefits were recognized.

I just think the intelligentsia don't want, or appreciate, the values that sports and competition instills in people and that is why they want to get rid of them. Again, that's my personal opinion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shaps

Good points, Gelston also made this observation.

Why I'm asking to discuss it. I think the underlying reason for such a move matters, and from the quotes they decided to put into the article and that I highlighted... it doesn't feel like it's about money.

It might sound stupid to some - but hear me out (not saying it is or isn't the reason).... Sports are one of the last true meritocracies. It develops and encourages sportsmanship, fair play, competition, and accepting defeat. All very valuable lessons. It's not the end all be all of course with that regards, but it has a huge impact.

Even when a group coalesced and garnered enough funds to support a schools full sports program, it was still denied. So money is not the underlying issue from my perspective. Something else is going on.

"By Stanford’s own accounting, cutting eleven teams as planned would save about $4 million per year. Yet when the school’s athletes raised $30 million to fund the programs, the administration said it wasn’t good enough."

I'll toss an idea out of what I think it is: Social Engineering - been going on a long while, has happened throughout history - this is just the new version in conjunction with social media. A docile citizenry is the desired end state.

---

Well, I don’t think they would just come out and say it’s just about money, that would suffer backlash. Coming up with other reasons such as “takes away scholarships for people in fields of medicine science etc etc” sounds better.
Regarding Stanford, those funds could be used to pay for a lot of other things school related. Not just sports that make no money or lose money. That money could be used to improve other areas of the school.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Solkern

Well, I don’t think they would just come out and say it’s just about money, that would suffer backlash. Coming up with other reasons such as “takes away scholarships for people in fields of medicine science etc etc” sounds better.
Regarding Stanford, those funds could be used to pay for a lot of other things school related. Not just sports that make no money or lose money. That money could be used to improve other areas of the school.

---

The problem with that thinking is that many of the large schools have enough endowment that they don't even need to charge students tuition at all. Also, a large amount of endowment money is dedicated to providing those sports scholarships so it's a shell game of BS used to justify egg head admins getting rid of sports, try and get rid of competitiveness and in general attack masculinity and western values. A perfect Leftist policy and very destructive to the disadvantaged males of society.

Ok, so let's just look at the money of college football for a minute. I will use LSU since it is my alma mater and I am most familiar with it. Seating capacity is just over 102,000, the student section is like 12,000, leaving roughly 90,000 pay seats. They play 8 home games a year, typically only 1 or 2 are sold out, that has a lot do with how good they are that year. So if we go with say 80% percent capacity across the year you are looking at 576,000 seats sold for the year. I no longer have season tickets but I would think $40/seat average would be probably low but we will go with that. So the school from just ticket sales generates $23,040,000/annually. That does not factor in any concession or paraphernalia sales or any licensing rights.

Anyone that says this is about money is just straight up lying. Major college programs generate HUGE sums for the universities, even small schools make money due to television rights and what they get payed to play larger schools. This is an extension of the lunacy behind kids sporting events that don't keep score or everyone gets a trophy. We are not doing kids any service by doing that. Life is hard, we are taught life lessons in sports that stay with us forever. No one likes to lose, we hate that feeling so it drives us to be better, work harder. This generation does not have that drive. I am really glad I do not have kids.

There was a line in the movie The Program where someone ask about why the athletic programs get so much better treatment and James Caan sums it best when he says something like, 'No one gets 70,00 people to pay to watch a chemistry experiment.' And there you have it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Solkern

Well, I don’t think they would just come out and say it’s just about money, that would suffer backlash. Coming up with other reasons such as “takes away scholarships for people in fields of medicine science etc etc” sounds better.
Regarding Stanford, those funds could be used to pay for a lot of other things school related. Not just sports that make no money or lose money. That money could be used to improve other areas of the school.

---

Good points also. If their intentions are that I can get behind it. Would love if our universities had better teachers/programs with more stringent baseline education. With some of the current curriculum the schools offer though - really makes me wonder.

Side conversation on that though - it's rough seeing a lot of school districts at the HS level trying to get rid of advanced STEM courses for 9th-12th graders. It doesn't get a lot of news, but if you check local/city news it's happening in quite a few places.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ~Rocktar~

The problem with that thinking is that many of the large schools have enough endowment that they don't even need to charge students tuition at all. Also, a large amount of endowment money is dedicated to providing those sports scholarships so it's a shell game of BS used to justify egg head admins getting rid of sports, try and get rid of competitiveness and in general attack masculinity and western values. A perfect Leftist policy and very destructive to the disadvantaged males of society.

---

I’m not sure how much profit large schools make after all expenses, I know Harvard uses most of its donations to cover tuition etc etc for deserving students that live abroad.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kutter

Ok, so let's just look at the money of college football for a minute. I will use LSU since it is my alma mater and I am most familiar with it. Seating capacity is just over 102,000, the student section is like 12,000, leaving roughly 90,000 pay seats. They play 8 home games a year, typically only 1 or 2 are sold out, that has a lot do with how good they are that year. So if we go with say 80% percent capacity across the year you are looking at 576,000 seats sold for the year. I no longer have season tickets but I would think $40/seat average would be probably low but we will go with that. So the school from just ticket sales generates $23,040,000/annually. That does not factor in any concession or paraphernalia sales or any licensing rights.

Anyone that says this is about money is just straight up lying. Major college programs generate HUGE sums for the universities, even small schools make money due to television rights and what they get payed to play larger schools. This is an extension of the lunacy behind kids sporting events that don't keep score or everyone gets a trophy. We are not doing kids any service by doing that. Life is hard, we are taught life lessons in sports that stay with us forever. No one likes to lose, we hate that feeling so it drives us to be better, work harder. This generation does not have that drive. I am really glad I do not have kids.

There was a line in the movie The Program where someone ask about why the athletic programs get so much better treatment and James Caan sums it best when he says something like, 'No one gets 70,00 people to pay to watch a chemistry experiment.' And there you have it.

---

I agree it’s about the money, but the schools just won’t come out and say that. It’ll make them look like the greedy fucks they are.

But going more into what you said, how much do you think LSU expenses are? The land, utilities, teachers, staff, recruitment, maintenance, admin, equipment etc etc. I bet you it has a pretty hefty annual cost.

Came across this interesting article about LSU.

They are conditions unbecoming of the state’s flagship university’s library, according to faculty and other educational officials who say the building should be a beacon of research and learning at the Baton Rouge campus.

But it’s also emblematic of the $510 million backlog of renovation and improvement projects that are needed to bring LSU’s historic campus up to date.

https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_ro...07957d120.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shaps

Good points also. If their intentions are that I can get behind it. Would love if our universities had better teachers/programs with more stringent baseline education. With some of the current curriculum the schools offer though - really makes me wonder.

Side conversation on that though - it's rough seeing a lot of school districts at the HS level trying to get rid of advanced STEM courses for 9th-12th graders. It doesn't get a lot of news, but if you check local/city news it's happening in quite a few places.

---

I’m not aware of what’s going on in HS, but getting rid of STEM or AP courses are bad.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Solkern

I’m not aware of what’s going on in HS, but getting rid of STEM or AP courses are bad.

---

This is just one example I read about the other day...

https://news.yahoo.com/virginia-movi...204158628.html

But you have to check local school districts and news in those areas to see it happening, it doesn't get national attention. But it's literally going on all over the place.

Personal opinion: It's abhorrent what they're doing to children/teenagers with regards to education in the States. I really feel for those with younger children contending with issues like this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shaps

This is just one example I read about the other day...

https://news.yahoo.com/virginia-movi...204158628.html

But you have to check local school districts and news in those areas to see it happening, it doesn't get national attention. But it's literally going on all over the place.

Personal opinion: It's abhorrent what they're doing to children/teenagers with regards to education in the States. I really feel for those with younger children contending with issues like this.

---

I’ll definitely have to look more into it. We are heading back to the states in the next 2-3 years. And education is my top priority.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Solkern

I agree it’s about the money, but the schools just won’t come out and say that. It’ll make them look like the greedy fucks they are.

But going more into what you said, how much do you think LSU expenses are? The land, utilities, teachers, staff, recruitment, maintenance, admin, equipment etc etc. I bet you it has a pretty hefty annual cost.

Came across this interesting article about LSU.

They are conditions unbecoming of the state’s flagship university’s library, according to faculty and other educational officials who say the building should be a beacon of research and learning at the Baton Rouge campus.

But it’s also emblematic of the $510 million backlog of renovation and improvement projects that are needed to bring LSU’s historic campus up to date.

https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_ro...07957d120.html

---

There is only a "backlog" because they are spending tons of cash on sporting facilities. Recently spending over $85m on a new sporting facility with a 500 foot Lazy River in the shape of LSU. This happens at a lot of colleges. They are competing for new student athletes so they want their college to look the best.

Honestly, LSU's locker room looks nicer than some of the NFL locker rooms I've seen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelston

There is only a "backlog" because they are spending tons of cash on sporting facilities. Recently spending over $85m on a new sporting facility with a 500 foot Lazy River in the shape of LSU. This happens at a lot of colleges. They are competing for new student athletes so they want their college to look the best.

Honestly, LSU's locker room looks nicer than some of the NFL locker rooms I've seen.

---

That hardly surprises me, it’s football program brings home the money and I’m sure it’s an amazing recruitment tool as well.