OK, sorry.

"As we see, university academic programs do indeed benefit from sports programs, both directly (some) and indirectly (much more) in the form of increased donations, fundraising, and state support, and also better students."

And this somehow refutes my point? So, not only does the athletic dept benefit to the tune of millions, but the university as a whole benefits, all as a result of unpaid labor? All the more reason to pay college athletes.

It's called the barter system. They get paid by getting a free education, treatment at their college like superstars, and getting seen by pro scouts who would not have seen them otherwise.

@ semck83

"That would kind of defeat the only good justification there *is* for having sports programs at university (well, almost -- more below)."

I would have killed someone to play a sport for my college. I would have happily walked on, too. It's called doing something because you enjoy doing it.

Granted, most athletes don't have that kind of passion, but it would purify college sports if you took away some of the money.

"I would have killed someone to play a sport for my college. I would have happily walked on, too. It's called doing something because you enjoy doing it. "

Heard of intramural leagues?

@2wl,

You quoted me saying this:

"There's where you're wrong, Draug. The rest of the university doesn't see a dime from athletic program profits (if there is even a profit, which oftentimes there isn't - more on that in a minute)."

And then asked, "And this somehow refutes my point?"

It does, if your point is this:

"There's where you're wrong, Draug. The rest of the university doesn't see a dime from athletic program profits (if there is even a profit, which oftentimes there isn't - more on that in a minute)."

You may have a broader point, but that's what Draug was already replying to, and we now see that your refutation was incorrect.

Drat, I messed up the pastes. Let's try this again.

@2wl,

You quoted me saying this:

"s we see, university academic programs do indeed benefit from sports programs, both directly (some) and indirectly (much more) in the form of increased donations, fundraising, and state support, and also better students."

And then asked, "And this somehow refutes my point?"

It does, if your point is this:

"There's where you're wrong, Draug. The rest of the university doesn't see a dime from athletic program profits (if there is even a profit, which oftentimes there isn't - more on that in a minute)."

You may have a broader point, but that's what Draug was already replying to, and we now see that your refutation was incorrect.

I think the "for" is an important word here. I technically was on a championship intramural soccer team, but I certainly didn't play for U of I. Or even on the intramural team all that often, they just needed another player. I hadn't played soccer since I was four.

I see.

So we're going to have these college teams, filled I guess with lower-quality players since there is no more full-ride program for the best students, and they're going to play in old small stadiums, and this is going to be a big step forward for college sports? (GF, not you Invictus).

I mean, I guess maybe. It depends what you think the purpose of college sports is, I suppose. I have always wondered that myself, but the only thing I can figure out that makes any sense is if it brings in money to the academic departments (which, in various ways, it does).

"It depends what you think the purpose of college sports is, I suppose"

Well, the current system of universities and the NCAA essentially profiteering off of student athletes is unacceptable.

Equally unacceptable would be a proposal to "downgrade" the quality of college athletics, which was not what I was suggesting but is what you inferred from my comments.

There's got to be a middle ground somewhere, in which the NCAA/universities get a modest cut, and athletes remain true amateurs who play for the name on the front of their jersey, not the name on the back of their jersey.

"Well, the current system of universities and the NCAA essentially profiteering off of student athletes is unacceptable."

Why? They don't have to play. Both sides get quite a bit out of it, from all I can tell, and it's a freely made decision. Perhaps the only part I do really object to is the movement to prohibit going professional (at either the major or minor level) out of high school, since to the extent that is illegal, then the college option is not a free choice.

Anyway, having college sports at their current quality entails giving a ton of full scholarships, having big stadiums, etc., etc. That takes a lot of money. If you think the universities will fund that out of tuition, you're wrong. And, once they fund it out of sports, I completely fail to see why they shouldn't also be able to use the money for academics, etc. That is their main purpose, after all.