OTish: Power 5 schools (and others) charging students mandatory fees to bankroll athletics departments
I'm interested what you guys think about athletic departments charging students mandatory fees (ranging from maybe $40/year to almost $700/year at UVA) to help bankroll the athletic department.
Does anyone know if Michigan does this? If so, do you think it's fair?
My thought is that it can go both ways. On the one hand, a successful football or basketball team often helps the prestige of the school (and, by corollary, drives up the prestige of the degree to some extent). On the other hand, I can see how someone can say that it's unfair to force students to pay for something they might not want to utilize by going to games (though students are charged fees for general facilities upkeep, regardless of whether they use those facilities, sooo ... is this different?).
Here's the Washington Post article that got me thinking about this: link.
(Also, this is my first board topic, so please be kind).
December 2nd, 2015 at 12:44 AM ^
that the type of sports teams which students are eager to watch are also the programs which don't need subsidies to survive because of TV money, merchandise revenue and ticket revenue from non-students.
The only reason Athletic Departments need subsidies is that they're funding sports which very few care about, student or otherwise..
And there is of course truth to the fact that university departments tend to spend their entire budgets even if they have to make frivolous purchases to do so. This is not just true for athletics but any other department (and not just in universities either). A department not using their budget is basically begging for that budget to be cut soon. You know the end of the fiscal year is upon you when everyone in the office gets new fancy chairs..again.
December 2nd, 2015 at 6:08 AM ^
blame it on the university, not the athletic department because they are tied to the University's budget. You have zero idea on how the AD spend their budget. You'd be surprised at how much they spend on things that are important to the AD. They don't get "fancy chairs" just because it's at the fiscal year.
If the students don't want to pay the fee and it's an option, they should be prepared to pay the same amount of money they would get tickets as the season ticket holders pay for if they want to go to a football or basketball game which would cost more money than they would if they get charged for a fee.
If you want to bitch about the non revenue sports funding, blame it on title IX.
December 1st, 2015 at 8:41 PM ^
My thoughts on this from 2011
http://mgoblog.com/diaries/why-does-eastern-michigan-play-d-1-athletics
December 1st, 2015 at 8:54 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
December 1st, 2015 at 8:59 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
December 1st, 2015 at 9:19 PM ^
Modern day athletic departments shouldn't be financed off the back of students. If everyone was running athletics like they were 50 years ago -- less extravagant facilities/smaller coaches salaries -- I wouldn't see a problem student fees. However with the current cost of tuition I don't think it is fair to tack on money to run the athletic department. Make it opt-in and don't force people to take out student loans to fund the AD if they don't care to go to games. Although it is almost heretical to say on this board...athletics is not part of the core mission of the university and shouldn't be a mandatory fee.
December 1st, 2015 at 9:55 PM ^
Most athletic departments aren't sitting on piles of money.
December 1st, 2015 at 10:04 PM ^
December 1st, 2015 at 10:56 PM ^
Then tell students to sleep in the dorms that we had to sleep in back in the day (i.e., no air conditioning, poor lighting, no internet, cracked plaster).
No modern kid will put up with that. Students these days want fancy gyms, fancy buffet cafeterias, etc.
December 1st, 2015 at 10:56 PM ^
I also had no cell phone so I had to wait in line at the pay phone once a month when I wanted to call home using a prepaid phone card. Fun times.
December 2nd, 2015 at 9:59 AM ^
For all the moaning about the cost of college, newer, fancier (more expensive) dorms seem to be a significant factor in the admissions arms race.
I'd hypothesize that's because dorm quality is a very tangible factor that incoming students can weigh more easily than doing a value based "tuition+room & board" / "career prospects after I complete my 4 year degree" analysis.
Also from the University perspective, it's probably very easy to finance the construction of new dorms when you can virtually guarantee they'll be full of paying tenants year after year.
December 1st, 2015 at 9:30 PM ^
December 1st, 2015 at 9:31 PM ^
December 1st, 2015 at 9:45 PM ^
December 2nd, 2015 at 12:42 AM ^
My problem isn't with subsidizing. Obviously, a University should be able to provide services to students outside the classroom. My issue is with with what I perceive to be an arms race between the Athletic Departments across America. If you are Michigan, OSU, etc. go ahead and spend the cash, you have it. But if you dont, FreddieMercuryHayes put it best " If it can't self support, then maybe time to downsize and not have Cadillac facilities."
December 2nd, 2015 at 8:52 AM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
December 2nd, 2015 at 10:44 AM ^
I wasn't blaming the AD over the University, they are both to blame in most cases. ADs are spending too much money and the Universities are generally supportive of this. I don't see it changing anytime soon, but it still grinds my gears a bit.
December 1st, 2015 at 10:53 PM ^
Rutgers charges it. $280 per semester per student. Funny thing is they also charge it to students at other Rutgers campuses - Camden and Newark, which are pretty far away and they will never go to the games.
December 2nd, 2015 at 9:42 AM ^
If Athletics brings prestige to my degree then Alabama grads should have no trouble getting jobs at McKinsey and Goldman
December 2nd, 2015 at 10:14 AM ^
...but hey, there is PLENTY of money to pay players.