GV 2 Whistle, ACLU Stepping in

[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.

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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.

I'll take this bet (and win running away). At the collegiate level, football is a money-maker that pays for all the other athletics.

There a significant difference between scholastic athletic budgets (which I agree are not for the most part self-supporting) and most amateur athletic budgets of which scholastic athletics are a significant part but also include the innumerable baseball, basketball, soccer, football, etc leagues that exist.

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

It's a nasty habit that I need to get rid of when writing on forums.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

I'll take this bet (and win running away). At the collegiate level, football is a money-maker that pays for all the other athletics.

I think the idea that more than half of the colleges in the country earn enough money from their 2 major men's sports to support the entire athletic budget is a fallacy. Even assuming the top 20 teams can do that (which I don't assume), that's not even close to 50% of Division 1 colleges. Add to that the large number of Division 2, 3, and NAIA schools, and you're going to lose this bet with force before you limp away.

Unless you think schools like Iowa State, Northwestern, Colorado State, New Mexico, etc., are somehow able to keep their athletic programs self-sustaining, you're going to lose the bet even if we keep it to the FBS schools.

Originally Posted by Eastshire

There a significant difference between scholastic athletic budgets (which I agree are not for the most part self-supporting) and most amateur athletic budgets of which scholastic athletics are a significant part but also include the innumerable baseball, basketball, soccer, football, etc leagues that exist.

For the record, I'm not suggesting any of these football programs aren't self-sustaining at the D1 level. They may well be, but to suggest that the football and basketball revenue at Iowa State is able to support the expenditures of all sports is incorrect at best.

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I think the idea that more than half of the colleges in the country earn enough money from their 2 major men's sports to support the entire athletic budget is a fallacy. Even assuming the top 20 teams can do that (which I don't assume), that's not even close to 50% of Division 1 colleges. Add to that the large number of Division 2, 3, and NAIA schools, and you're going to lose this bet with force before you limp away.

Unless you think schools like Iowa State, Northwestern, Colorado State, New Mexico, etc., are somehow able to keep their athletic programs self-sustaining, you're going to lose the bet even if we keep it to the FBS schools.



For the record, I'm not suggesting any of these football programs aren't self-sustaining at the D1 level. They may well be, but to suggest that the football and basketball revenue at Iowa State is able to support the expenditures of all sports is incorrect at best.

Now, I'm just dying to know. Does anyone have any idea of how to track this down?

[26 Year Gap]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

Now, I'm just dying to know. Does anyone have any idea of how to track this down?

Maybe there is a stat guy or table guy or something...

[APG]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

Now, I'm just dying to know. Does anyone have any idea of how to track this down?

Are you looking for football programs in FBS? Or Athletic departments in general?

[amusedofficial]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

The athletics program is not part of the mission of the school.

Patently absurd.

I see evidence to the contrary every night.