I'm reading the book on major college football -- former SI writer Armen Keteyian is one of the authors, and one of the first points the authors make is that only 20% of the "big-time" programs make money. So, if that's the case, and 80% of the programs lose money on football, why play it?
Everyone else has been faced with budget cuts. Football is expensive -- insurance, equipment, stadiums, staffs -- you name it, football costs more per kid than any other player. And this awful percentage doesn't even take into account FCS schools, almost all of which probably lose money (and make it up, in certain cases, by charging high student activity fees). There are certain reasons cited -- getting the student body fired up, getting the alumni to donate -- but aren't these old bromides that lack empirical proof?
Atop that, kids get hurt over and over again, and certain kids, let's face it, get used. They are kept eligible to glorify the school and help a coach keep his job. But afterwards, they get discarded the way the old shoulder pads do. See, for example, the Oklahoma State expose in SI.
So I don't get it. I mean, I like my hometown pro team, and yes, homecoming at my school can be fun (especially because I can see old friends). But in this day and age, why do so many schools go to the sometimes extraordinary expense to have a football program? There are protestors on every university campus about everything -- and sometimes the issues do not even make any sense. Where is the hue and cry about football when compared to the dropping of numerous sports for other kids? Okay, so softball won't generate a dime for Temple University, and that gets to another line of thinking.
Why have intercollegiate athletics at colleges anyway? Oh, sure, because Winston Churchill once wrote that the Battle of Britain was won on the playing fields at Eton, or something like that. But does that mean that Eton had to beat another school, or was it through intramural athletic vigor at the heralded English boarding school? Put differently, should universities be putting their extra dollars toward those programs and, say, not programs that might be better designed to help kids develop passions for careers that lead them to be good citizens and, yes, taxpayers?
The arguments can be endless, but the expenses can be great. I didn't realize that so many programs lose money, but the reporting seems pretty detailed. At any rate, I don't want to get anyone in the SEC or elsewhere all riled up during holiday season, but the questions need to be asked.
Everyone else has been faced with budget cuts. Football is expensive -- insurance, equipment, stadiums, staffs -- you name it, football costs more per kid than any other player. And this awful percentage doesn't even take into account FCS schools, almost all of which probably lose money (and make it up, in certain cases, by charging high student activity fees). There are certain reasons cited -- getting the student body fired up, getting the alumni to donate -- but aren't these old bromides that lack empirical proof?
Atop that, kids get hurt over and over again, and certain kids, let's face it, get used. They are kept eligible to glorify the school and help a coach keep his job. But afterwards, they get discarded the way the old shoulder pads do. See, for example, the Oklahoma State expose in SI.
So I don't get it. I mean, I like my hometown pro team, and yes, homecoming at my school can be fun (especially because I can see old friends). But in this day and age, why do so many schools go to the sometimes extraordinary expense to have a football program? There are protestors on every university campus about everything -- and sometimes the issues do not even make any sense. Where is the hue and cry about football when compared to the dropping of numerous sports for other kids? Okay, so softball won't generate a dime for Temple University, and that gets to another line of thinking.
Why have intercollegiate athletics at colleges anyway? Oh, sure, because Winston Churchill once wrote that the Battle of Britain was won on the playing fields at Eton, or something like that. But does that mean that Eton had to beat another school, or was it through intramural athletic vigor at the heralded English boarding school? Put differently, should universities be putting their extra dollars toward those programs and, say, not programs that might be better designed to help kids develop passions for careers that lead them to be good citizens and, yes, taxpayers?
The arguments can be endless, but the expenses can be great. I didn't realize that so many programs lose money, but the reporting seems pretty detailed. At any rate, I don't want to get anyone in the SEC or elsewhere all riled up during holiday season, but the questions need to be asked.
No comments:
Post a Comment