Spending other people's money?

RodentRampage

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
9,467
Reaction score
198
Points
63
There is an article in the Gophers section of the sports section entitles "Athletic pursuit: spending other people's money". The blurb claims "Most sports programs operate on the earnings of a few, causing pressure to succeed at football, basketball and hockey." I haven't been able to read the actual article, it is a Premium article, but from what I can see it's just plain wrong.

First thing wrong is that claim that non-revenue sports are "spending other people's money". Whose money might that be? Are we spending the football team's money? The basketball team's money? The hockey team's money? It's not the team's money. It's the athletic department's money. It's the University's money. Claiming that the revenue belongs to the particular sports team is like claiming that the touchdowns belong only to the people who scored it, and not to the linemen.

Again, I admit that I haven't read the article. But the claim that non-revenue sports put pressure to win on the revenue sports is absurd. People do get upset when the most popular teams lose, and that has nothing to do with the non-revenue sports. The pressure is caused by the popularity of the revenue sports. Does anyone think there would be LESS pressure to win at the revenue sports if the non-revenue sports were eliminated?

One of the primary reasons that some people favor eliminating non-revenue sports is to direct more funding to the revenue sports. Assuming that the U was not the only school to do this, it would only lead to an "arms race". The pressure to succeed at the revenue sports would not decrease in the slightest.

The U does not have an unusual number of sports, the number of sports sponsored is near the Big Ten average. Most universities have only two revenue sports, while the U has three. I'd like to see the actual article, but it looks like a retread of the same old thing.
 

There is an article in the Gophers section of the sports section entitles "Athletic pursuit: spending other people's money". The blurb claims "Most sports programs operate on the earnings of a few, causing pressure to succeed at football, basketball and hockey." I haven't been able to read the actual article, it is a Premium article, but from what I can see it's just plain wrong.

First thing wrong is that claim that non-revenue sports are "spending other people's money". Whose money might that be? Are we spending the football team's money? The basketball team's money? The hockey team's money? It's not the team's money. It's the athletic department's money. It's the University's money. Claiming that the revenue belongs to the particular sports team is like claiming that the touchdowns belong only to the people who scored it, and not to the linemen.

Again, I admit that I haven't read the article. But the claim that non-revenue sports put pressure to win on the revenue sports is absurd. People do get upset when the most popular teams lose, and that has nothing to do with the non-revenue sports. The pressure is caused by the popularity of the revenue sports. Does anyone think there would be LESS pressure to win at the revenue sports if the non-revenue sports were eliminated?

One of the primary reasons that some people favor eliminating non-revenue sports is to direct more funding to the revenue sports. Assuming that the U was not the only school to do this, it would only lead to an "arms race". The pressure to succeed at the revenue sports would not decrease in the slightest.

The U does not have an unusual number of sports, the number of sports sponsored is near the Big Ten average. Most universities have only two revenue sports, while the U has three. I'd like to see the actual article, but it looks like a retread of the same old thing.

The Strib usually puts up the Sunday premium stories on Wednesday.
 




Top Bottom