a. Only a very small portion of the student body participates on the college sports teams. If it's so great for people, why not make everyone participate? Why do they get free tuition? Two semesters of P.E. don't count.
b. It's possible that alumni athletes donate more, but how much more? It's highly unlikely the "more" that they supposedly give compensates for the more that they take from the school in the form of tuition not paid, expenses incurred through travel, construction and maintenance of sports buildings and facilities, and staff hired to support sports teams.
C. People can exercise without the existence of expensive college sports teams. You see people doing it every day without college uniforms on.
d. The last thing a student needs is some silly sport with all its time demands to distract from his/her studies which will have the more consequencial effect on their lives.
I congratulate all schools that eliminate wasteful fluff in order to provide a more economical education for the vast majority of the student body who aren't on athletic teams.
a. I went to a small college where a little less than half the students participated in athletics. No free tuition, at least not for runners.
b. Do you think an alum who was an english or chem major gives back as much as the cost to the college? Also, the mission of the college should be to provide a good well-rounded education to students, not generate alumni contributions in order to make a profit.
c. There is value to participating in a team sport rather than exercising on your own. It teaches you to work with others and develop a sense of being part of a group working toward a goal.
d. Many say that participation in sports builds one's character in a way that helps you later in your professional life. Hardly silly.