Maybe not free, but I'll bet they're significantly cheaper.

Of course there is a difference - the NBA and WNBA are entertainment businesses. And they would and should be handled differently than an optional activity in an educational setting.

Given that there is such a huge disparity, I'm sure you would tell the ticket takers, janitors, and concession workers that if they work at a WNBA event, they should also expect less of an hourly wage? Does their concession stand uniform cost less? Do they somehow drive a lesser distance to the game, even if the game is in the same arena?

Let's move that same argument to the school setting - does the janitor get paid a lesser wage for cleaning up after a girls' game? Should the table crew get paid less, because there is a difference in attendance between a girls' vs. a boys' game? How should the attendance at a game affect the number of officials used for that particular game?

Possibly that rationale came from: http://biglizards.net/Graphics/Foreg.../JanetReno.jpg

I think the answer to all of these questions is most likely (or most likely should be) yes. Athletics at the school level should be self-supporting. It is quite likely, given the disparity of paying fans, that girls basketball doesn't bring in enough money to pay for three officials. I'd go further and say that most girls programs are probably subsidized by the boys program in the first place.

I know a lot of members of this forum think $500 a year is insignificant, but if it's $500 a year the program doesn't have, it is a big deal.

Touche.

That will never happen. It's a direct violation of the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution for imposing cruel and unusual punishment.

Oh, the humanity, the humanity.......:eek:

So scholastic sports should be available based upon the attendance of the events?

And only schools who can self-sustain sports should field teams? So if a child is from the projects, or a rundown trailer park, or is female they shouldn't have scholastic sports available to them in public schools?

They should be based on being self-supporting. Attendance is just one of the ways they can do this.

Should schools provide sports with the money they could use on teachers, books and supplies when they are short on these things? No. It has nothing to do with who the children are or what gender they are. It's about good stewardship of the funds the school has. Just because you want to offer sports doesn't mean you have the money to do so at the level you would like.

Ultimately, athletics is not a necessary part of the school function. So why should we take money away from the necessary parts to fund the unnecessary parts? Obviously, I'm a big fan of high school sports. I like to see everyone get a chance to play that wants to. But you can't spend money you don't have (well, you shouldn't).

Very few amateur athletic programs anywhere are self-supporting by any meaningful definition of the word.

You're suggesting that almost all amateur athletic programs are run by simply accumulating debt that is never paid back? I find that very unlikely. After all who would loan them the money in the first place?

Most amateur athletic programs are run via registration fees, sponsorships, donations and fund raising but at the end of the day they have to pay their bills. This is what I mean when I say self-supporting.

Who says the money isn't there? It's how the money is budgeted that determines if it's there or not. And the money that is available goes to the entire school district. It should cost each school in a particular school district/city the same amount money to fund its programs.

There should be no money in the school's budget for athletics (as a separate entity from PE). If a school can't run it's athletics program without taking money out of the main budget of the school, it shouldn't be running an athletics program.

The athletics program is not part of the mission of the school. If it can run one without taking money away from it's mission, that's great. If it can't, it shouldn't be doing it at all.

I understand you won't agree with this; and I'll happily admit it's a bit of an odd position for someone who's second job is officiating high school sports.

No, stop assuming what I'm suggesting because you keep getting it wrong. You'll save time.

I said "any meaningful definition." The fact that virtually every amateur athletic program in the world either gets sufficient support makes your statement meaningless. Of course they're all self-supporting, but so?

Now, some of them get support from other sports (the men's tennis team at the University of Iowa, for example, is likely taking their funds from the football team). Others get it straight from donors. Others get it from tax dollars, raffles, bake sales, etc.

Ah, now you're defining it in a way that's meaningful (and therefore debatable), and where I thought you were heading. The vast majority of scholastic athletic budges of which I'm aware are indeed general-budget-funded and therefore, in your definition, not self-supporting.

I'm willing to bet this is the case with most colleges as well. Athletic budgets will necessarily drain funds from the general budget that would be used for other things.

You'll note that I asked if that was what you were suggesting. I didn't assume it.

So, you said very few were self-supporting. Now, of course they all are.

This is my point exactly (well, except for the tax dollars bit). They should support themselves, not take tax money. (Unless, of course, the tax was specifically raised for the purposes of supporting athletics.)

1. I missed the question mark on what was grammatically written as a statement. Fair enough.

2 and 3. I addressed them in my next post. I'll just say that most school budgets are passed with the assumption that sports are included.