GV 2 Whistle, ACLU Stepping in

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

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

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

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?

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).

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

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

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

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

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.

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.

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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

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

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?

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

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.

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.)

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

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



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



3. 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.

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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

Been to a high school football game in Texas or Florida lately...they are absolutely self-supporting. May not be the norm, but they generate a LOT of money.

[26 Year Gap]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

Been to a high school football game in Texas or Florida lately...they are absolutely self-supporting. May not be the norm, but they generate a LOT of money.

This is why Football was not included in the reduction of games recommended and nearly imposed by the FHSAA until a girl's parent got involved. I don't think boys basketball is self-supporting, either, based on the attendance I have seen at most games. At least here, when soccer of both genders, basketball of both genders and other events seem to be scheduled on the same nights.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

Been to a high school football game in Texas or Florida lately...they are absolutely self-supporting. May not be the norm, but they generate a LOT of money.

The football teams can probably support the football teams in those states, but I doubt they're able to support the rest of the sports at these schools as well.

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

The football teams can probably support the football teams in those states, but I doubt they're able to support the rest of the sports at these schools as well.

My younger brother played HS football and had a trip to Masillon, OH. There he learned that the football team was essentially the student council. Because of the money they brought in, they had a large voice in how money was dispersed - by helping purchase uniforms, etc, for other sports.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

My younger brother played HS football and had a trip to Masillon, OH. There he learned that the football team was essentially the student council. Because of the money they brought in, they had a large voice in how money was dispersed - by helping purchase uniforms, etc, for other sports.

Again, I'm not saying there aren't exceptions. But even this statement, "by helping purchase..." assumes funds were coming from elsewhere and the football revenue was a help.

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Again, I'm not saying there aren't exceptions. But even this statement, "by helping purchase..." assumes funds were coming from elsewhere and the football revenue was a help.

I'd go so far to say the exception at the high school level would be self-supporting departments.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

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).

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.

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

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.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

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.

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.