3 ms·

Sports programs at university pay for themselves. They pay for themselves because people buy tickets to games, which they do to see exceptional athletes.

ghaff 3y ago
Maybe at schools with big football/basketball programs. At a school like MIT which was being discussed yesterday, sports certainly do not directly pay for themselves.
ZoomerCretin 3y ago
Do legacy admissions not pay for themselves?
- OkayPhysicist 3y ago
  I didn't say anything about legacy admissions. In fact, I'm all in on not-exclusively-academic-merit based admissions for private universities. I will happily trade a few bottom-of-the-rung merit-based admissions in exchange for students that either benefit me in some way (by subsidizing my education and/or providing good networking opportunities) or try and make up for the mistreatment of disadvantaged groups.
paxys 3y ago
Sports programs at the top ~20 universities pay for themselves (and that too just the top sports). The rest are a money sink.
jcranmer 3y ago
Football and (men's) basketball pay for themselves. The other sports do not. At many smaller universities, not even football and basketball can achieve net revenue for sports. Source: look at databases like https://www.sportico.com/business/commerce/2021/college-sports-finances-database-intercollegiate-1234646029/ https://www.sportico.com/business/commerce/2021/college-spor...
Brusco_RF 3y ago
I get that. I just never really understood why higher education and semi-pro athletics are so deeply linked together. They are totally different things!
hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
> Sports programs at university pay for themselves. I don't see why this even matters (besides the fact that it's not really true except for the biggest sports at some of the biggest sport schools). The debate is over whether it's fair that some students get the benefits that come with being an Ivy League grad without having the academic prowess to otherwise be admitted. Whether or not they are able to cover their costs is immaterial to that discussion. I actually heard someone else make a similar argument for children of big donors, i.e. that schools rely on those big donors for their missions. And I'm like "You're just arguing that you're cool with nearly all forms of corruption and bribery as long as the money is put to a good use."
- OkayPhysicist 3y ago
  It boils down to this: If you have some fraction of your students who get in, not on their primary merits as students, but for some other reason that benefits the rest of the student body in some way, eliminating that fraction of the students benefits a handful of students who were at the very top of the waitlist to get in, at the cost of the benefits those preferentially selected students provided. In both athletics and the kids of rich donors cases, I'd be happy to defend that being a bad trade-off. The networking value of the rich kids going to the same university as me far outweighs the slight increase in average academic prowess of the university (emphasis on slight: remember, these are students who ranked below every other student in the merit-based application pool). Athletics is a smaller effect size than the rich kids, but at the end of the day by providing very valuable labor to the university for approximately free, they completely pay for the sports programs (some of which the merit-admitted enjoyed, such as having a very large gym open 24 hours a day), in addition to feeding money back into the university, subsidizing everyone else's education. Couple that with the fact that these students are disproportionately NOT taking up seats in the most competitive programs, and it's still a net positive for the student body.
  - vkou 3y ago
    I can make the same argument for AA. A diversity of backgrounds and perspectives, including students who managed to overcome a lot more adversity than the average rich kid, or white-collar family admittee will make for a better, richer learning experience for everyone.
makeitdouble 3y ago
Arguably a lot of categories would pay for themselves, but I'm assuming you don't have a Youtuber or pro gamer program at Carnegie Mellon for instance.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
_blz2 3y ago
what business is the university in? Education or selling sports tickets?
vkou 3y ago
> Sports programs at university pay for themselves. Then spin them out as a sports club, owned by the university. Don't waste the athlete's times with classes, and don't waste class space with athletes that can't cut it. (The reason that doesn't happen is because the athletes will actually start asking for a share of the billions of dollars earned by the club.)
wrp 3y ago
Sports programs used to be a net income source, but I think that ended with Title IX, because schools became forced to spend on non-income-producing programs. However, athletic programs are still given tremendous emphasis by schools because success in sports is effective in attracting donors. Whatever administrators say, college athletics is not at all about building character. It's about drawing money.

ghaff 3y ago

Maybe at schools with big football/basketball programs. At a school like MIT which was being discussed yesterday, sports certainly do not directly pay for themselves.

ZoomerCretin 3y ago

Do legacy admissions not pay for themselves?

OkayPhysicist 3y ago
I didn't say anything about legacy admissions. In fact, I'm all in on not-exclusively-academic-merit based admissions for private universities. I will happily trade a few bottom-of-the-rung merit-based admissions in exchange for students that either benefit me in some way (by subsidizing my education and/or providing good networking opportunities) or try and make up for the mistreatment of disadvantaged groups.

paxys 3y ago

Sports programs at the top ~20 universities pay for themselves (and that too just the top sports). The rest are a money sink.

jcranmer 3y ago

Football and (men's) basketball pay for themselves. The other sports do not. At many smaller universities, not even football and basketball can achieve net revenue for sports. Source: look at databases like https://www.sportico.com/business/commerce/2021/college-sports-finances-database-intercollegiate-1234646029/ https://www.sportico.com/business/commerce/2021/college-spor...

Brusco_RF 3y ago

I get that. I just never really understood why higher education and semi-pro athletics are so deeply linked together. They are totally different things!

hn_throwaway_99 3y ago

> Sports programs at university pay for themselves. I don't see why this even matters (besides the fact that it's not really true except for the biggest sports at some of the biggest sport schools). The debate is over whether it's fair that some students get the benefits that come with being an Ivy League grad without having the academic prowess to otherwise be admitted. Whether or not they are able to cover their costs is immaterial to that discussion. I actually heard someone else make a similar argument for children of big donors, i.e. that schools rely on those big donors for their missions. And I'm like "You're just arguing that you're cool with nearly all forms of corruption and bribery as long as the money is put to a good use."

OkayPhysicist 3y ago
It boils down to this: If you have some fraction of your students who get in, not on their primary merits as students, but for some other reason that benefits the rest of the student body in some way, eliminating that fraction of the students benefits a handful of students who were at the very top of the waitlist to get in, at the cost of the benefits those preferentially selected students provided. In both athletics and the kids of rich donors cases, I'd be happy to defend that being a bad trade-off. The networking value of the rich kids going to the same university as me far outweighs the slight increase in average academic prowess of the university (emphasis on slight: remember, these are students who ranked below every other student in the merit-based application pool). Athletics is a smaller effect size than the rich kids, but at the end of the day by providing very valuable labor to the university for approximately free, they completely pay for the sports programs (some of which the merit-admitted enjoyed, such as having a very large gym open 24 hours a day), in addition to feeding money back into the university, subsidizing everyone else's education. Couple that with the fact that these students are disproportionately NOT taking up seats in the most competitive programs, and it's still a net positive for the student body.
- vkou 3y ago
  I can make the same argument for AA. A diversity of backgrounds and perspectives, including students who managed to overcome a lot more adversity than the average rich kid, or white-collar family admittee will make for a better, richer learning experience for everyone.

makeitdouble 3y ago

Arguably a lot of categories would pay for themselves, but I'm assuming you don't have a Youtuber or pro gamer program at Carnegie Mellon for instance.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

_blz2 3y ago

what business is the university in? Education or selling sports tickets?

vkou 3y ago

> Sports programs at university pay for themselves. Then spin them out as a sports club, owned by the university. Don't waste the athlete's times with classes, and don't waste class space with athletes that can't cut it. (The reason that doesn't happen is because the athletes will actually start asking for a share of the billions of dollars earned by the club.)

wrp 3y ago

Sports programs used to be a net income source, but I think that ended with Title IX, because schools became forced to spend on non-income-producing programs. However, athletic programs are still given tremendous emphasis by schools because success in sports is effective in attracting donors. Whatever administrators say, college athletics is not at all about building character. It's about drawing money.