incognito_man Posted November 30, 2021 Share Posted November 30, 2021 1 minute ago, Leader said: If the school has a proven profit center - i.e. football/sports and can maintain their budget via that profit center - then there's no need to cut funding to educational programs etc. Just divert $$ from that profit center to those programs and relieve the taxpayers burden. It doesnt have to be a loss "per se" - just a self sustaining system. Where is that money better spent? Possibly on trade schools/tech schools. I'd buy that. But don't cut education funding overall. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Packerraymond Posted November 30, 2021 Share Posted November 30, 2021 1 minute ago, Leader said: If the school has a proven profit center - i.e. football/sports and can maintain their budget via that profit center - then there's no need to cut funding to educational programs etc. Just divert $$ from that profit center to those programs and relieve the taxpayers burden. It doesnt have to be a loss "per se" - just a self sustaining system. Football profits make it so that schools have a soccer team, rowing team, softball team, etc... Football and men's basketball are the only two sports a university has that are profitable, and basketball is marginal. Without those profits, women's college sports don't exist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThatJerkDave Posted November 30, 2021 Author Share Posted November 30, 2021 That is the price of doing business. The football program is a net positive on the University. It is actually bringing in a revenue stream that the English department, for example, is not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leader Posted November 30, 2021 Share Posted November 30, 2021 3 minutes ago, incognito_man said: Where is that money better spent? Possibly on trade schools/tech schools. I'd buy that. But don't cut education funding overall. I'm not in favor of cutting educational funding etc - but if you have a state institution which receives taxpayer money - that can sustain itself (i.e. not diminish its overall programs) via profit centers - the taxpayer's burden can be reduced. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BAM Posted November 30, 2021 Share Posted November 30, 2021 The problem is with framing it as a burden Conservatively a $15,000 educational spending returns about $74,000 in tax revenue, a 493.33% return on investment. Perhaps framing it as a burden is misleading. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leader Posted November 30, 2021 Share Posted November 30, 2021 Just now, BAM said: The problem is with framing it as a burden Conservatively a $15,000 educational spending returns about $74,000 in tax revenue, a 493.33% return on investment. Perhaps framing it as a burden is misleading. Swap out burden for cost. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Packerraymond Posted November 30, 2021 Share Posted November 30, 2021 5 minutes ago, Leader said: I'm not in favor of cutting educational funding etc - but if you have a state institution which receives taxpayer money - that can sustain itself (i.e. not diminish its overall programs) via profit centers - the taxpayer's burden can be reduced. You're working under the assumption that the university sees the money from the athletic department, it does not. Two separate entities. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThatJerkDave Posted November 30, 2021 Author Share Posted November 30, 2021 3 minutes ago, Leader said: I'm not in favor of cutting educational funding etc - but if you have a state institution which receives taxpayer money - that can sustain itself (i.e. not diminish its overall programs) via profit centers - the taxpayer's burden can be reduced. I am. There are things that are wastes of money, and there shouldn't be funding provided for these things. I do not want to cut funding for sciences, or business, or engineering, but there are a lot of wastes at the university level, that shouldn't receive any funding, but are nonetheless given money that is paid for by the taxpayer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
incognito_man Posted November 30, 2021 Share Posted November 30, 2021 5 minutes ago, Leader said: Swap out burden for cost. Still though, the point remains. You are essentially making the following argument: My work will put $1,000 a month in my 401k that has a positive return for me. Therefore I should spend $1,000 a month on something I don't need instead of investing that in my 401k, too. Money invested into education is always a good idea. Even if there is OTHER money being invested. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leader Posted November 30, 2021 Share Posted November 30, 2021 4 minutes ago, Packerraymond said: You're working under the assumption that the university sees the money from the athletic department, it does not. Two separate entities. Join them. They're "identical" in all things - other than (apparently....) budget. So join them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
incognito_man Posted November 30, 2021 Share Posted November 30, 2021 4 minutes ago, ThatJerkDave said: I am. There are things that are wastes of money, and there shouldn't be funding provided for these things. I do not want to cut funding for sciences, or business, or engineering, but there are a lot of wastes at the university level, that shouldn't receive any funding, but are nonetheless given money that is paid for by the taxpayer. It absolutely should be data-driven. And projected societal needs should be funded. i.e. if we think we need 10,000 chemical engineers in 4 years there should be 10,000 free chemical engineer education scholarships provided. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Packerraymond Posted November 30, 2021 Share Posted November 30, 2021 4 minutes ago, Leader said: Join them. They're "identical" in all things - other than (apparently....) budget. So join them. You didn't read my prior post. You don't have any other sports besides men's basketball without football profits. They operate deep in the red. An athletic teams budget is essentially, football profits + basketball profit + booster contribution + university contribution. The women's volleyball team uses that to pay their coaching staff, all meals and travel, their scholarship requirements, recruiting travel, etc... Do that times however many teams are in the athletic portfolio of the university. Not to mention most of the football coaches' salary is paid for by the booster program. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Packerraymond Posted November 30, 2021 Share Posted November 30, 2021 10 minutes ago, ThatJerkDave said: I am. There are things that are wastes of money, and there shouldn't be funding provided for these things. I do not want to cut funding for sciences, or business, or engineering, but there are a lot of wastes at the university level, that shouldn't receive any funding, but are nonetheless given money that is paid for by the taxpayer. The archaic "spend it or lose it" philosophy everywhere causes this. Instead of rolling it over or setting up a "rainy day" fund and receiving the same amount the next year, if you don't spend it all, you get less next year. Oshkosh built a dome for intermurals and a new Alumni Center right on the river while I was there for this reason. So yes, you're definitely correct that they receive more money than they actually need and get to waste some funny money at the end of every year. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leader Posted November 30, 2021 Share Posted November 30, 2021 3 minutes ago, Packerraymond said: You didn't read my prior post. You don't have any other sports besides men's basketball without football profits. They operate deep in the red. An athletic teams budget is essentially, football profits + basketball profit + booster contribution + university contribution. The women's volleyball team uses that to pay their coaching staff, all meals and travel, their scholarship requirements, recruiting travel, etc... Do that times however many teams are in the athletic portfolio of the university. Not to mention most of the football coaches' salary is paid for by the booster program. I did read it in fact...and actually understood it. There's multiple *incoming revenue streams* which can be used to pay for all sorts of things - many of which are listed above. Listen - I'm not saying the taxpayer input is egregious or burdensome (there's that word again......) - just that when you have a *state* school thats operating at a high level - i.e. - bringing in a lot of cash via sports (read: LSU, UofF etc...) - those funds could be used to support educational programs as well - i.e. - not run as a separate and distinct profit center. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Packerraymond Posted November 30, 2021 Share Posted November 30, 2021 2 minutes ago, Leader said: - those funds could be used to support educational programs as well - i.e. - not run as a separate and distinct profit center. They cannot, unless you want to cut your other sports programs, which you can't because of Title IX. The cost to operate a D1 football team is massive, there isn't a ton of profit left over and what is leftover subsidizes the rest of the athletic department. I worked in one as a college internship for 4 years. In principle, I would 100% support what you're saying in cutting the burden on the common citizen, I'm just telling you that's not a feasible option. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.