Ruxton Towers XC wrote:
I just think it would be good for us to come to some kind of agreement on why we even have collegiate sports. What's the point? I think I know, but I worry that the lawyers in the NCAA have their own ideas...
The NCAA mission statement about mens sana in corpore sano* is great, but then they sign a billion dollar TV contract for de facto pro football league that only 25 schools are really part of and the remaining 200,000 college athletes have to suffer the consequences.
We are flying 100 football players from UW to play against Ohio on a Wednesday night, getting home Sunday, why? Oh, money.
In the meantime, thousands of cross country runners are getting cut for no good reason. It is stupid.
* A strong mind in a strong body
This is what it boils down to. There is so much money in football that the NCAA is willing to sacrifice the rest of its athletics mission to get a piece of that pie. Pretty much every dollar spent on another team is to make the school look good so that football will look even better. Besides Oregon, NAU, and BYU - there are no track schools. Every other school would cut the program if they could improve in football by doing so (ok maybe a few like BU and Washington make money off their programs).
Schools would cut almost any sport to improve in football. LSU is routinely at or near the top in women's gymnastics, but if you told them they could use the funding for that program to get a more highly ranked tight end, they would cut it. Same with almost every other sport except in the rare instances they make money off it through summer camps, hosting hs/club events, etc.