Home
Articles
Photos
Interviews
Forums
New posts
Search forums
Georgia Tech Recruiting
Dashboard
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Chat
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Georgia Tech Athletics
Georgia Tech Football
How much institutional support does the GTAA receive?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="18in32" data-source="post: 285041" data-attributes="member: 2492"><p>What I hate about these kinds of analyses is that they are usually fodder for people to rail against 'big-money' in college sports... which completely misunderstands what these analyses really reveal. </p><p></p><p>People's interest in football and men's basketball means those programs generate a huge amount of money (as we all know) at virtually all P5 schools, and many G5 schools, too. And because they are the primary generators of money, it only makes sense to invest heavily in them, too. So the football coach is usually the highest paid public employee in many states. He makes the school the most money, so of course he's paid the most.</p><p> </p><p>But for every dollar you spend on men's programs, you've got to spend dollars on women's programs. So the schools are required to increase athletic budgets, sometimes at the expense of academic budgets, to pay for all the money-losing women's sports. So all this talk of how wrong it is to take money from academic budgets to fund 'big-money' college sports is completely wrong. </p><p></p><p>I don't have any objection to schools subsidizing women's money-losing sports (no more than I would object to academic budgets subsidizing a school's money-losing drama program). I just get annoyed that people are under the impression football players are taking dollars out of the mouths of struggling librarians. The economics of that view are completely backwards.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="18in32, post: 285041, member: 2492"] What I hate about these kinds of analyses is that they are usually fodder for people to rail against 'big-money' in college sports... which completely misunderstands what these analyses really reveal. People's interest in football and men's basketball means those programs generate a huge amount of money (as we all know) at virtually all P5 schools, and many G5 schools, too. And because they are the primary generators of money, it only makes sense to invest heavily in them, too. So the football coach is usually the highest paid public employee in many states. He makes the school the most money, so of course he's paid the most. But for every dollar you spend on men's programs, you've got to spend dollars on women's programs. So the schools are required to increase athletic budgets, sometimes at the expense of academic budgets, to pay for all the money-losing women's sports. So all this talk of how wrong it is to take money from academic budgets to fund 'big-money' college sports is completely wrong. I don't have any objection to schools subsidizing women's money-losing sports (no more than I would object to academic budgets subsidizing a school's money-losing drama program). I just get annoyed that people are under the impression football players are taking dollars out of the mouths of struggling librarians. The economics of that view are completely backwards. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
The 2014 ACC Football Championship was played in what city?
Post reply
Home
Forums
Georgia Tech Athletics
Georgia Tech Football
How much institutional support does the GTAA receive?
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top