-
After multiple requests and discussion, Twitter/X links will again be allowed on the board. Be mindful of the content you choose to post. Inflammatory, misinformation, or any content that violates the ToS will be removed. Repeated offenses may result in temporary suspensions. If you would like to still have Twitter/X links hidden from your feed, send a PM to Bread. Any other questions can be discussed in the customer service/support forum. Examples of hide tweet options shown here: https://allbuffs.com/threads/twitter-x-ban.161161/post-3915936
Good Read
- Thread starter BuffUp
- Start date
BlackNGold
Club Member
Coilorado is one of the most subsidized of the P5 schools....
I would very wary of any study done by the chronicle of higher education and the huffington post.
Another typical Huff post start with our conclusion and then look for supporting data. And twist our methodology to make it look like we want it to.
They are counting student ticket sales as a subsidy. That automatically skews the numbers.
Beyond that when you look at strictly athletic revenues vs. expenses very few schools do make a surplus. What they don't look at though is the impact of athletics on the total revenue picture of the schools.
How many big donations for the medical center or the business school or law school are closed in a luxury box at a football game. How many of the average alumni and other donors write their checks after a big football win. The fact is the athletics, especially football, drive donations for the entire school.
This doesn't even count the impact of athletics on campus life and campus diversity. A big part of the deficits can be directly attributed to expenses for women's sports mandated by Title IX. Take away football and you quickly see huge numbers of the non-revenue sports die off.
On many campuses, many of which are struggling to create diversity in student populations, athletic programs include significantly higher percentages of students of color and students from lower income backgrounds than the general student population.
CSU stated in their justification for committing to their new stadium the role of football in attracting students to the school.
The Presidents and governing bodies of these universities are not composed of stupid people. They are also not composed of people who simply love athletics above all else. Given their preference most would channel the dollars to their particular area of academic interest.
Instead, almost universally, they continue to support athletics because they know that the ROI for the schools is there. Simply put the numbers don't tell the story, especially if somebody like Huff Post decides to skew those numbers even more.
By the way, also not noted in Colorado's numbers were the cost and temporary reduction in revenue as a result of changing conferences.
They are counting student ticket sales as a subsidy. That automatically skews the numbers.
Beyond that when you look at strictly athletic revenues vs. expenses very few schools do make a surplus. What they don't look at though is the impact of athletics on the total revenue picture of the schools.
How many big donations for the medical center or the business school or law school are closed in a luxury box at a football game. How many of the average alumni and other donors write their checks after a big football win. The fact is the athletics, especially football, drive donations for the entire school.
This doesn't even count the impact of athletics on campus life and campus diversity. A big part of the deficits can be directly attributed to expenses for women's sports mandated by Title IX. Take away football and you quickly see huge numbers of the non-revenue sports die off.
On many campuses, many of which are struggling to create diversity in student populations, athletic programs include significantly higher percentages of students of color and students from lower income backgrounds than the general student population.
CSU stated in their justification for committing to their new stadium the role of football in attracting students to the school.
The Presidents and governing bodies of these universities are not composed of stupid people. They are also not composed of people who simply love athletics above all else. Given their preference most would channel the dollars to their particular area of academic interest.
Instead, almost universally, they continue to support athletics because they know that the ROI for the schools is there. Simply put the numbers don't tell the story, especially if somebody like Huff Post decides to skew those numbers even more.
By the way, also not noted in Colorado's numbers were the cost and temporary reduction in revenue as a result of changing conferences.