Do you know the difference between HALF and EVERYTHING?
If you actually cared about the bottom half the events would not be empty.
Stanford dropping wrestling (and other sports)
- Thread starter backdrft76
- Start date
Do you know the difference between HALF and EVERYTHING?
If you actually cared about the bottom half the events would not be empty.
Keep pissing into the wind, arguing with Jason Bryant who knows first-hand more about this than anyone here.
You can keep pissing in the wind. Sports that lose money are all on the block. If you want to keep wrestling then you better suck it up and be willing to cut the bottom half of sports that draw nothing. Stanford knows first hand too.
Like you. Revenue ≠ profit. Every sport that sells a ticket is a revenue producing sport. Every sport that sells a t-shirt or an over priced bottle of Aquafina is a revenue producing sport.
Last edited:
I can't tell whether you think you are (A) describing the actual meaning of "non-revenue sport" or whether you are (B) merely tilting at a windmill and prescribing your preferred logic for our language.
If (A), then I think you are looking at things rather simplistically. You overlook several points, including:
(1) Revenue to whom? Revenue is less about whatever money that end customers give up than it is about money that an entity gets in. Even within one business, there can be multiple entities within the business such that each entity has its own revenue. The word revenue in "revenue sport" may refer to revenue that the University entity gets from the Team entity, and the word needs not refer to revenue that the Team entity gets from paying customers.
(2) Secondary meaning. Just because you arguably know the meaning of a word in isolation in general does not mean you know the meaning of a specific term in a specific context that includes the word. The word vacuum literally means total absence of, e.g., air. And yet a vacuum cleaner has many particles of air within it. There is no vacuum anywhere!
(3) Usage beats logic. People use "non-revenue sport" in a certain way. You're not going to change the prevailing definition using logic or etymology. For example, if Penn State beats Rutgers and you say "fantastic!", no one will be confused and ask you why you think Penn State's beating Rutgers is so unexpected that it should happen only in a fantasy. Fantastic now can mean good; you can't change that.
Last edited:
I can't tell whether you think you are (A) describing the actual meaning of "non-revenue sport" or whether you are (B) merely tilting at a windmill and prescribing your preferred logic for our language.
If (A), then I think you are looking at things rather simplistically. You overlook several points, including:
(1) Revenue to whom? Revenue is less about whatever money that end customers give up than it is about money that an entity gets in. Even within one business, there can be multiple entities within the business such that each entity has its own revenue. The word revenue in "revenue sport" may refer to revenue that the University entity gets from the Team entity, and the word needs not refer to revenue that the Team entity gets from paying customers.
(2) Secondary meaning. Just because you arguably know the meaning of a word in isolation in general does not mean you know the meaning of a specific term in a specific context that includes the word. The word vacuum literally means total absence of, e.g., air. And yet a vacuum cleaner has many particles of air within it. There is no vacuum anywhere!
(3) Usage beats logic. People use "non-revenue sport" in a certain way. You're not going to change the prevailing definition using logic or etymology. For example, if Penn State beats Rutgers and you say "fantastic!", no one will be confused and ask you why you think Penn State's beating Rutgers is so unexpected that it should happen only in a fantasy. Fantastic now can mean good; you can't change that.
Considering I attended home (and a number of away) events throughout the course of my extended run as an undergraduate in college and until I moved away for EVERY sport, I actually do care. Strike two.
Group hires attorney, threatens lawsuit to save Clemson men's track program
https://www.espn.com/college-sports...eatens-lawsuit-save-clemson-men-track-program
Could adding athletic programs decrease financial woes for some schools? FDU is banking on it
https://www.espn.com/college-sports...programs-decrease-financial-woes-some-schools
https://www.espn.com/college-sports...eatens-lawsuit-save-clemson-men-track-program
Could adding athletic programs decrease financial woes for some schools? FDU is banking on it
https://www.espn.com/college-sports...programs-decrease-financial-woes-some-schools
Last edited:
Since I am a CPA, I have to chime in, this is a painful thread that requires adult supervision.
When they say 'Revenue" sport, what is really meant is "big profit". You may not like it, you may find it unfair, but the two big money makers in college sports are men's football and men's basketball.
No matter how much we know the woman's field hockey team is filled with great athletes, working their tails off to play, the simple fact is you can't get 100,000 to watch the games, millions to park their keisters in from of the boob-tube and get people to buy untold millions in licensed "merch".
The only reason the term "revenue" is used is because colleges and universities like to posture as "non-profit", and that's only because the average person on the street thinks that a business organized under § 501 (c)(3) operates an enterprise that is somehow selfless and indifferent to the bottom line. Trust me, anything run like that is either a hobby or headed for bankruptcy.
Truth, the term "non-profit" is simply a misnomer of the tax code term "not for individual profit", meaning that there are no stockholders eligible to receive dividends. Yes, you need an "exempt purpose" to obtain the status, but those are broad and that just means management does pretty much whatever it wants that won't cause a public scandal.
The truth is actually worse. The colleges and universities, through the auspices of the NCAA, are running a professional sports league that makes enormous profits, and in an ideal world should be required to pay "unrelated business income tax" or UBIT on the profits.
Oh and if you are going to cite this:
"As a non-profit organization, we put our money where our mission is: equipping student-athletes to succeed on the playing field, in the classroom and throughout life. "
The nature of a tax exempt charity is in how the money is produced, not how it is consumed.
When they say 'Revenue" sport, what is really meant is "big profit". You may not like it, you may find it unfair, but the two big money makers in college sports are men's football and men's basketball.
No matter how much we know the woman's field hockey team is filled with great athletes, working their tails off to play, the simple fact is you can't get 100,000 to watch the games, millions to park their keisters in from of the boob-tube and get people to buy untold millions in licensed "merch".
The only reason the term "revenue" is used is because colleges and universities like to posture as "non-profit", and that's only because the average person on the street thinks that a business organized under § 501 (c)(3) operates an enterprise that is somehow selfless and indifferent to the bottom line. Trust me, anything run like that is either a hobby or headed for bankruptcy.
Truth, the term "non-profit" is simply a misnomer of the tax code term "not for individual profit", meaning that there are no stockholders eligible to receive dividends. Yes, you need an "exempt purpose" to obtain the status, but those are broad and that just means management does pretty much whatever it wants that won't cause a public scandal.
The truth is actually worse. The colleges and universities, through the auspices of the NCAA, are running a professional sports league that makes enormous profits, and in an ideal world should be required to pay "unrelated business income tax" or UBIT on the profits.
Oh and if you are going to cite this:
"As a non-profit organization, we put our money where our mission is: equipping student-athletes to succeed on the playing field, in the classroom and throughout life. "
The nature of a tax exempt charity is in how the money is produced, not how it is consumed.
Stanford has a 28 billion dollar endowment (yes; that number is correct). They can afford a wrestling team, despite protestations about their finances.
The Top 10 Richest Universities in North America
The Top 10 Richest Universities in North America
I hate to even post this because it shoves the reality of the situation right in your face but good for these kids chasing their dreams and keeping a smile on their face along the way.
That kid on the far right, kneeling with a blue knee pad, with the big smile, looks old for a college kid.
Anyhow, I hope he finds a good college to continue his career!
Anyhow, I hope he finds a good college to continue his career!
This cracked me up. Weird tho, not sure if that was what you were going for or not.. lol
Here's the latest update following Tuesday's meeting. Perhaps there's a chance.
https://us10.campaign-archive.com/?u=8667bb1db5f3fc44267766481&id=a67c2ac86b
https://www.keepstanfordwrestling.com/
https://us10.campaign-archive.com/?u=8667bb1db5f3fc44267766481&id=a67c2ac86b
https://www.keepstanfordwrestling.com/
A first for a men's sport team?
https://www.espn.com/college-sports...-men-track-programs-part-title-ix-settlements
Clemson to reinstate men's track programs as part of Title IX settlements
https://www.espn.com/college-sports...-men-track-programs-part-title-ix-settlements
According to this update, there was a second meeting last Friday between the university and the 36 Sports Strong group to discuss the finances around what potential reinstatement might look like.
https://us10.campaign-archive.com/?u=8667bb1db5f3fc44267766481&id=ef4e5b39d6
https://us10.campaign-archive.com/?u=8667bb1db5f3fc44267766481&id=ef4e5b39d6
When the Faculty Lounge Goes After College Sports
https://www.nationalreview.com/2021...OsSiXGw2Y_lwkNbg07xlhfXNj7YI4vzV9yca8W0dormbU
That isn't the point being argued - the initial statement was if people showed up. The point I'm discussing doesn't even consider whether or not these sports (at any school) are ticketed events. Ticketed or not, I was still there at my alma mater for EVERY sport.
Most of the time, mid-major pretenders like my alma mater would rather not ticket it and call it "non-revenue" than actually spend any time or effort promoting the sports or trying to find some GA to staff the gate to come in, and then use that as an excuse. "No revenue" - uh, no effort to generate revenue is more like it.
Wow.
"When college leaders were surveyed in 2009 by the landmark Knight Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics, one respondent expressed this prevailing attitude among so many in the ivory tower: “There’s too much identification of a university with non-academic aspects, distracting from the values of higher education and from desirable values in society.”"
"When college leaders were surveyed in 2009 by the landmark Knight Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics, one respondent expressed this prevailing attitude among so many in the ivory tower: “There’s too much identification of a university with non-academic aspects, distracting from the values of higher education and from desirable values in society.”"
That quote explains a lot about a percentage of administration and staff at colleges and universities.
My father who is 82 has a high school classmate that has been College professor at Temple for 50 plus years. He has disdain for the sports programs at Temple and other schools. To him higher education should only be about academia.
The University of Chicago use to be a member of the Big Ten, they then dropped all sports (Universities are for academics). Eventually they added back D3 sports, they found out that the lack of sports hurt the quality and quantity of the students interested in attending their university. Sports provide something to do for many students, activities that have nothing to do with academics.
Reality is, sports are a big draw for students and they present a huge opportunity to market the school and attract more and better students. Take Alabama for example, they have used football to increase their attractiveness for better students. I know three kids from the Baltimore suburbs are were are outstanding students and are either attending or graduated from Alabama in the last 8 years. 15 years ago, their would have been zero interest. An excellent financial aid package didn't hurt either.
Typical elitism.
That's what's known as a Kinsley Gaffe -- when a public figure accidentally says what he's really thinking.
Make no mistake, that attitude exists at Penn State too -- and has for decades. Joe was resented by a number of academics. And even without the resentment, I know higher-ups at PSU (in some cases Spanier direct reports) who wished the university didn't have a football team.
Luckily, those same people were pragmatic enough to know what impact that would have on academic fundraising. It was mostly wishful thinking -- and sure enough, they went to football games.
I'm actually not optimistic about this.
When I hear "university president will follow the Board's recommendation" -- cue up Jim Gibbons. No sh**. Every university president's job is to do what the Board approves.
But note what he's not doing: making the recommendation to the Board. I.e., not being a leader.
So that statement tells me: he's going to do the politician thing, and let the Board take the heat for an unpopular decision.
Hope I'm wrong.
The National Review article quoted an Atlantic article as Nittinsc posted.
The Atlantic had a Columbia Sociology professor who stated " Admitting too many athletes means denying admission to .... future artists and writers and political scientists and economists....
The National Review author wrote why can't an athlete also be an artist.
Then one guy I know who was an artist/athelete came to mind!
The Atlantic had a Columbia Sociology professor who stated " Admitting too many athletes means denying admission to .... future artists and writers and political scientists and economists....
The National Review author wrote why can't an athlete also be an artist.
Then one guy I know who was an artist/athelete came to mind!
The value of hard work and perseverance learned by student-athletes is underestimated by many in academia. All things being equal, I'd hire a 2.5 or 3.0 student-athlete over a 4.0 student who had no extracurricular activities every time.
Things that Columbia prof would never say to John Urschel's face ...
When Terry Pegula offered a 9 figure donation to fund a new hockey arena and facility, PSU academics pitched a fit to the point where Terry had to pony up significantly more money earmarked to academics to make the project happen. I don't recall any ADs whining when academic endowments are made.
I am guessing a lot of professors have bad memories of being bullied or beaten up by an athlete and would love to settle the score. This is the way they do it. That and the old - "Hey, why doesn't anyone think I am important? Look at me" mentality! probably plays into it also. It is sad to see when people destroy other peoples dreams and really gain nothing for themselves in the process. Small people will act like small people, because it is all they know. Let's hope some big people are around to make the choice of allowing people with big dreams to chase their dreams.
