Whenever this conversation gets up I get to think where people think lines should be drawn. I have a history on this board of defending the institution over the team if it was necessary, so I consider myself at least somewhat objective on this.
If someone argues that we should not spend money on athletics for whatever their reason is, that is fine. My question is where does it stop? If the argument is that athletics is not an academic mission, how come the same thing doesn't apply to Dram performances, for instance?
You can make the same arguments that it really isn't a core skill for the future for most students? The state provides subsidies for it, athletics are probably more self sustaining on a per student basis than it...you could probably make the same argument for dance as well.
I am not saying eliminate those programs, but how come athletics has to play by a different set of rules? is it because they don't like athletics? The same arguments made to support those majors and those programs (lifelong skills that enrich their education, opportunities to exhibit skills that don't necessarily conform to a traditional education, opportunity to becomes a dance instructor or drama teacher down the road, community enrichment, and so on) could all be made for athletics as well. Many student athletes go on to become coaches as adults, largely due to the skills they learned while being a college athlete.
I just think when some of these people start bashing athletics, they should be careful because if the same regard athletics is held to in their eyes was applied to other programs at any academic institution, these same people would be shocked at what else would be eliminated from the school...
