Somewhat interesting and logical:
http://www.hulu.com/watch/221341/stossel-thu-mar-03-2011#s-p1-so-i0
Take a look.
Somewhat interesting and logical:
http://www.hulu.com/watch/221341/stossel-thu-mar-03-2011#s-p1-so-i0
Take a look.
I was hoping he would talk about how the revenue generation from football goes to pay for most of the sports opportunities in college. Without it we would not have all the non revenue generating sporting opportunities we have. And this goes for the women too. But somehow these 85 scholarships affect men's programs across the board. They should be taken out of the equation as they are an entity all their own.
If they did this then Men's track/ xc for instance could equal out the 5.4 scholarship difference btw women's programs. So women get 43% more sholarships for track/xc?! But with less participation in HS?!
How about this to go after some of the NCAA football market?
If women in college sports competed in lingerie, I would actually tune into ESPN2 to watch them. Except for the basketball teams, however. That would be nasty, unless you have an amazon fetish.
shoe fetish wrote:
I was hoping he would talk about how the revenue generation from football goes to pay for most of the sports opportunities in college. Without it we would not have all the non revenue generating sporting opportunities we have. And this goes for the women too. But somehow these 85 scholarships affect men's programs across the board. They should be taken out of the equation as they are an entity all their own.
If they did this then Men's track/ xc for instance could equal out the 5.4 scholarship difference btw women's programs. So women get 43% more sholarships for track/xc?! But with less participation in HS?!
How about this to go after some of the NCAA football market?
http://www.lflus.com/
Are you sure about that? I'm pretty sure most NCAA football teams are big time money losers. You might make an argument that alumni donations make up for that, but I've never seen any proof.
No im not. And thinking about it that is probably right. I went to a school with a traditional top tier football team so i guess i was going off of that university. But either way, it's still not a fair rule. to balance out the numbers by making every other sport a disproportionate representation of that sport makes no sense. While i do believe the system was broken at the time, the universities should have the ability to field the teams that it wants to and are representative of actual participation. We could easily have a flexible system which reviews the participation numbers of HS athletics as a guide to scholarships available.
shoe fetish wrote:
I was hoping he would talk about how the revenue generation from football goes to pay for most of the sports opportunities in college. Without it we would not have all the non revenue generating sporting opportunities we have. And this goes for the women too. But somehow these 85 scholarships affect men's programs across the board. They should be taken out of the equation as they are an entity all their own.
Except this doesnt happen. Usually fewer than 70 of the 400+ NCAA football programs (all three levels) operate in the black any given year. Fewer than 20 routinely operate surpluses. Now there are other programs that can operate in the red yet still manage to fun their athletics. The University of Washington Huskies are a good example. Their football program hasnt run a surplus in years, yet their athletic department is 97% self funded...because of donors, whos main interest is the football program.
This myth that football programs fund everything else is just that, a myth. At most colleges the football program eats up more money than the rest of the athletic programs combined. Especially when you factor in things like stadium costs, and such that arent considered part of the "football" budget but are "athletic department" budget items.