ADVERTISEMENT

U if I Athletics for All or Some ???

That’s not the point, the point is that Kirk Ferentz along with college football in general have reached a point where their bloated salary’s and the athletic departments race to spend millions of dollars on facilities have made a dramatic and often fatal effects on amateur sports overall at the college level . The end result is not sustainable and the consequences will be that years from now you may only have a half dozen sports at a college. That is not an Athletic Program, it is not what amateur athletics and the NCAA mission statements are designed to do . You are eliminating opportunities for thousands of athletes just for the benefit of 85 football players .
Fact that you don't realize none of these other sports or coaches would have jobs if it weren't for the success and money that football generates. With that comes bigger salaries and nicer facilities.

You are clueless
 
So, Pecker, honest question; for those schools like say ISU....if they have a good financial year, should they bring back baseball for a season? Or if there are other schools that don't have wrestling make some coin because they went to a great bowl, put it on the ledger because they can afford it all of a sudden?

And yes, I'm being somewhat snarky, but still asking a serious question.
 
I think many departments were wanting to cut sports...but it’s always a bad look for the U and AD.

Covid was merely an excuse to cut them without looking like the bad guy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hawkedoff
I am really getting tired of this entitlement attitude. No one has a right to play college sports. If the sport loses money it will always be at risk of being done away with. Remember if the sports loses money you have to basically go to the tax payers and ask them to fund this nonsense. It is not like high school. In College the Football program is the bill payer for every other program with the possible exception of mens basketball. The purpose of College is to get an education so that you can get a good job and contribute to society. Not so a bunch of entitled little shit heads can self actualize.
 
If anything this pandemic has made me realize we need less non revenue sports so these football athletes can be fairly compensated. I’d be fine with wrestling going next.

Thank God you are not helping run the U of I athletic program. Getting rid of wrestling at Iowa?!!! You’d be run out of town, tar n feathered first.

Also, all the top coaches have agreed to a pay cut this year - Ferentz, McCaffrey, Brands, and Bluder.
 
So the University if Iowa has decided that they are going to play football. Are we expected to get excited about the fact that the season will be basically meaningless. I mean after all there is no guarantee that they are going to even play 8 games and even in doing so how many limited participants will we have as the season progresses. It appears that this will be a week to week list of who can play and what team gets lucky enough to field their best players Under this scenario no one can really say that because of these factors we can really determine a true winner.

What pisses me off is that despite all the feel good statements it’s really about trying limit the financial impact that not having a football season would create . In between this stop and start scenario The University of Iowa Athletic Department dropped 5 sports programs and subsequently ended the dreams of roughly the same amount (85)of student-athletes and instead made the choice to have 85 players play football.
Yes I know they were non revenue sports and despite what I hear many of you saying theses were not sports that that the athletic departments were going to cut anyway. There are athletic departments across the country that are not cutting out other programs, yes Minnesota is one but it isn’t happening at almost any other school.

What makes it worse is that even now after getting some of that revenue back there is no consideration at all to reverse course and do the right thing . Non-Revenue sports do not need to be cut,
They are an integral part in a healthy athletic program, there are literally thousands of non-revenue sports across the land that continue to and will continue to exist because essentially they are part of an overall athletic program and yes I understand that football revenue is the reason they exist and everyone should be ok with that .

The problem is not the fact that these non-revenue sports exists because of football, the question is could other things be done. It’s not a lot of money here, roughly 3.2 million dollar savings could sustain 5 sports and 85 athletes . I won’t go into how much of that could be saved by eliminating the bloated salary’s of the football staff or the ridiculous ramp up of building facilities I could go on and on but essentially you all know that this escalation of funds for football and basketball are not sustainable and not even practical . There was no consideration of even trying to save these sports by creative funding measures such as cutting travel costs across the board, fundraising, staff elimination in these sports ... no Iowa Athletics just with one mighty swipe of the pen took the easy way out. My gosh we even spent what 6 million dollars on a lawsuit payout to a former associate but we couldn’t come up with sone money to keep 5 sports ?
At what point do you say enough is enough? At what point do we say this is ridiculous that Kirk Ferentz makes more money than these 5 sports spend in a year( Kirk... hint... why don’t you step up and take a 50% pay cut to fund these sports for another year until some more funding can be found)
How about the people who lost jobs/livelihoods get those back first before you consider a 19 year old's extra cirriculur activities?
 
  • Like
Reactions: pahawk68
That’s not the point, the point is that Kirk Ferentz along with college football in general have reached a point where their bloated salary’s and the athletic departments race to spend millions of dollars on facilities have made a dramatic and often fatal effects on amateur sports overall at the college level . The end result is not sustainable and the consequences will be that years from now you may only have a half dozen sports at a college. That is not an Athletic Program, it is not what amateur athletics and the NCAA mission statements are designed to do . You are eliminating opportunities for thousands of athletes just for the benefit of 85 football players .
What you are missing out on is that in order to be competitive the AD has to commit those kinds of resources to football. If you don't feed the Golden Goose it will die and then it won't be laying golden eggs to fund the non-revenue sports. This is where your rant is misplaced.

I agree with you 100% that these non-revenue sports are important for a healthy AD and should be funded, but I think your anger at the football program and the resources they are given are misplaced.
 
The opportunity for those young people to row a boat or do gymnastics would never exist in the first place if it wasn't for football and basketball. Even non revenue sports are expensive and without the money revenue producing sports bring in, they would never have gotten to participate in those other sports in the first place.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pahawk68
So the University if Iowa has decided that they are going to play football. Are we expected to get excited about the fact that the season will be basically meaningless. I mean after all there is no guarantee that they are going to even play 8 games and even in doing so how many limited participants will we have as the season progresses. It appears that this will be a week to week list of who can play and what team gets lucky enough to field their best players Under this scenario no one can really say that because of these factors we can really determine a true winner.

What pisses me off is that despite all the feel good statements it’s really about trying limit the financial impact that not having a football season would create . In between this stop and start scenario The University of Iowa Athletic Department dropped 5 sports programs and subsequently ended the dreams of roughly the same amount (85)of student-athletes and instead made the choice to have 85 players play football.
Yes I know they were non revenue sports and despite what I hear many of you saying theses were not sports that that the athletic departments were going to cut anyway. There are athletic departments across the country that are not cutting out other programs, yes Minnesota is one but it isn’t happening at almost any other school.

What makes it worse is that even now after getting some of that revenue back there is no consideration at all to reverse course and do the right thing . Non-Revenue sports do not need to be cut,
They are an integral part in a healthy athletic program, there are literally thousands of non-revenue sports across the land that continue to and will continue to exist because essentially they are part of an overall athletic program and yes I understand that football revenue is the reason they exist and everyone should be ok with that .

The problem is not the fact that these non-revenue sports exists because of football, the question is could other things be done. It’s not a lot of money here, roughly 3.2 million dollar savings could sustain 5 sports and 85 athletes . I won’t go into how much of that could be saved by eliminating the bloated salary’s of the football staff or the ridiculous ramp up of building facilities I could go on and on but essentially you all know that this escalation of funds for football and basketball are not sustainable and not even practical . There was no consideration of even trying to save these sports by creative funding measures such as cutting travel costs across the board, fundraising, staff elimination in these sports ... no Iowa Athletics just with one mighty swipe of the pen took the easy way out. My gosh we even spent what 6 million dollars on a lawsuit payout to a former associate but we couldn’t come up with sone money to keep 5 sports ?
At what point do you say enough is enough? At what point do we say this is ridiculous that Kirk Ferentz makes more money than these 5 sports spend in a year( Kirk... hint... why don’t you step up and take a 50% pay cut to fund these sports for another year until some more funding can be found)
It sounds like you and @hawkedoff share a lot of the same "ideas". Should definitely PM each other to collaborate. It looks like you at least acknowledge that said programs are non-revenue generating and require subsidies from the football/ basketball programs to exist, so maybe you can work on him. He might through out a juicy Coe College reference that he thinks is somehow relevant, so be ready for that one.
 
1. It's pretty clear most AD's really don't care about olympic sports for the most part.
2. Like it or not, the more money AD's make from football, the more money that's going to flow in to football. It honestly sucks for those kids and coaches... but 15 years ago these olympic sport coaches were getting paid like 80k a year. Many of them have tripled their salaries due to football TV money. It sucks when the balloon pops but some random ribbon dancing coach isn't going to give back their inflated salary either.
 
Honest question.

Many of you say that these sports didn't exist before football or being bank rolled by football. Is that really so? I mean sports since Men's swimming and diving have existed since the early 1900's at UI. Pretty sure football wasn't generating diddly squat revenue then.

So what gives? What changed?
 
Honest question.

Many of you say that these sports didn't exist before football or being bank rolled by football. Is that really so? I mean sports since Men's swimming and diving have existed since the early 1900's at UI. Pretty sure football wasn't generating diddly squat revenue then.

So what gives? What changed?
Television
 
That’s not the point, the point is that Kirk Ferentz along with college football in general have reached a point where their bloated salary’s and the athletic departments race to spend millions of dollars on facilities have made a dramatic and often fatal effects on amateur sports overall at the college level . The end result is not sustainable and the consequences will be that years from now you may only have a half dozen sports at a college. That is not an Athletic Program, it is not what amateur athletics and the NCAA mission statements are designed to do . You are eliminating opportunities for thousands of athletes just for the benefit of 85 football players .

Answer me this Dick Boy, does everyone get paid the same where you work? If not, why not?
 
  • Like
Reactions: LarryMullenJr.
Honest question.

Many of you say that these sports didn't exist before football or being bank rolled by football. Is that really so? I mean sports since Men's swimming and diving have existed since the early 1900's at UI. Pretty sure football wasn't generating diddly squat revenue then.

So what gives? What changed?

price of education went way the F up because government got involved in propping up and football got a shit ton more profitable because it is actually exciting to watch.
 
1. It's pretty clear most AD's really don't care about olympic sports for the most part.
2. Like it or not, the more money AD's make from football, the more money that's going to flow in to football. It honestly sucks for those kids and coaches... but 15 years ago these olympic sport coaches were getting paid like 80k a year. Many of them have tripled their salaries due to football TV money. It sucks when the balloon pops but some random ribbon dancing coach isn't going to give back their inflated salary either.

1) Don't agree. If they didn't care at all, Iowa would have only football, men's basketball and then enough women's sports to keep them compliant with Title IX. In fact, if college sports were really run like a business that is exactly what would happen. But Iowa has had men's/women's golf, men's/women's track, baseball, softball and the complete list of other sports.
2) Of course, yes that is going to happen. If Iowa were to take the route of going bare-bones budget on football, they would very shortly suck at football and everything else would be impacted. I didn't quite follow the rest of your point, but it seems like you are saying that the Olympic sport coaches have greatly increased their salaries due to football revenue. That is entirely true. The track coach at Iowa makes more than $170,000 a year. The baseball coach makes more than $320,000. The women's basketball coach makes almost $600,000 annual salary. Field hockey coach makes nearly $150,000. Women's soccer coach makes more than $140,000. Softball coach almost exactly the same. Women's golf coach makes nearly $90,000. Volleyball coach gets nearly $172,000. That is all great, Iowa is supporting those sports and I applaud the coaches for being good enough that they can get hired at a Big 10 school and earn a great living. But this is also why it's so extremely important to have a football season be played. Yes, it is "about the money" but pretty much every endeavor outside of loving our own family is about that. Everyone has to figure out how to earn enough to find housing, eat, etc. I am glad that they are trying to find ways to play these games, the livelihoods and scholarship opportunities for a lot of other sports are dependent on that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kceasthawk
1) Don't agree. If they didn't care at all, Iowa would have only football, men's basketball and then enough women's sports to keep them compliant with Title IX.
I believe there are requirements for a minimum number of total varsity men's programs along with women's programs and total programs for D1 FBS. Unless this recently changed.

To compete in FBS, a school must compete in at least 16 varsity sports, including football. Of those 16, at least six must be men's sports and at least eight must be women's sports. For FCS, schools must compete in at least 14 sports, with at least six men's sports and seven women's sports. If a school sponsors more sports than the minimum, it must follow NCAA guidelines to ensure equity between men's and women's opportunities.

https://www.sportsrec.com/division-1-college-football-requirements-6660709.html
 
I believe there are requirements for a minimum number of total varsity men's programs along with women's programs and total programs for D1 FBS. Unless this recently changed.

To compete in FBS, a school must compete in at least 16 varsity sports, including football. Of those 16, at least six must be men's sports and at least eight must be women's sports. For FCS, schools must compete in at least 14 sports, with at least six men's sports and seven women's sports. If a school sponsors more sports than the minimum, it must follow NCAA guidelines to ensure equity between men's and women's opportunities.

https://www.sportsrec.com/division-1-college-football-requirements-6660709.html

Yep, forgot about that. Thanks North. Basically it's to stop schools from doing what I outlined.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NorthDSMHawk
That’s as far as you got reading my post:
I guess as soon as you find a typo you just
decide to quit reading . That’s a great way to educate yourself I hope that your professor or boss or whoever you have to read documents from do not make a typo because you may never get to read anything again geezzzzz sone people


So what was educational about your post?
 
So the University if Iowa has decided that they are going to play football. Are we expected to get excited about the fact that the season will be basically meaningless. I mean after all there is no guarantee that they are going to even play 8 games and even in doing so how many limited participants will we have as the season progresses. It appears that this will be a week to week list of who can play and what team gets lucky enough to field their best players Under this scenario no one can really say that because of these factors we can really determine a true winner.

What pisses me off is that despite all the feel good statements it’s really about trying limit the financial impact that not having a football season would create . In between this stop and start scenario The University of Iowa Athletic Department dropped 5 sports programs and subsequently ended the dreams of roughly the same amount (85)of student-athletes and instead made the choice to have 85 players play football.
Yes I know they were non revenue sports and despite what I hear many of you saying theses were not sports that that the athletic departments were going to cut anyway. There are athletic departments across the country that are not cutting out other programs, yes Minnesota is one but it isn’t happening at almost any other school.

What makes it worse is that even now after getting some of that revenue back there is no consideration at all to reverse course and do the right thing . Non-Revenue sports do not need to be cut,
They are an integral part in a healthy athletic program, there are literally thousands of non-revenue sports across the land that continue to and will continue to exist because essentially they are part of an overall athletic program and yes I understand that football revenue is the reason they exist and everyone should be ok with that .

The problem is not the fact that these non-revenue sports exists because of football, the question is could other things be done. It’s not a lot of money here, roughly 3.2 million dollar savings could sustain 5 sports and 85 athletes . I won’t go into how much of that could be saved by eliminating the bloated salary’s of the football staff or the ridiculous ramp up of building facilities I could go on and on but essentially you all know that this escalation of funds for football and basketball are not sustainable and not even practical . There was no consideration of even trying to save these sports by creative funding measures such as cutting travel costs across the board, fundraising, staff elimination in these sports ... no Iowa Athletics just with one mighty swipe of the pen took the easy way out. My gosh we even spent what 6 million dollars on a lawsuit payout to a former associate but we couldn’t come up with sone money to keep 5 sports ?
At what point do you say enough is enough? At what point do we say this is ridiculous that Kirk Ferentz makes more money than these 5 sports spend in a year( Kirk... hint... why don’t you step up and take a 50% pay cut to fund these sports for another year until some more funding can be found)
Im willing to bet you have no idea what the athletic department did or didn’t do to try and save those sports.
 
Yep, forgot about that. Thanks North. Basically it's to stop schools from doing what I outlined.

And many schools in places like the SEC carry the absolute minimum number of sports possible to stay D1 while investing in football. There are places where AD's are run like a business.

My point on olympic sports proponents saying that everything is inflated in football, also don't acknowledge that everything got VERY inflated in the olympic sports. And when cuts need to happen, they aren't going to come from the cash cow. That is just a fact of life.
 
So the University if Iowa has decided that they are going to play football. Are we expected to get excited about the fact that the season will be basically meaningless. I mean after all there is no guarantee that they are going to even play 8 games and even in doing so how many limited participants will we have as the season progresses. It appears that this will be a week to week list of who can play and what team gets lucky enough to field their best players Under this scenario no one can really say that because of these factors we can really determine a true winner.

What pisses me off is that despite all the feel good statements it’s really about trying limit the financial impact that not having a football season would create . In between this stop and start scenario The University of Iowa Athletic Department dropped 5 sports programs and subsequently ended the dreams of roughly the same amount (85)of student-athletes and instead made the choice to have 85 players play football.
Yes I know they were non revenue sports and despite what I hear many of you saying theses were not sports that that the athletic departments were going to cut anyway. There are athletic departments across the country that are not cutting out other programs, yes Minnesota is one but it isn’t happening at almost any other school.

What makes it worse is that even now after getting some of that revenue back there is no consideration at all to reverse course and do the right thing . Non-Revenue sports do not need to be cut,
They are an integral part in a healthy athletic program, there are literally thousands of non-revenue sports across the land that continue to and will continue to exist because essentially they are part of an overall athletic program and yes I understand that football revenue is the reason they exist and everyone should be ok with that .

The problem is not the fact that these non-revenue sports exists because of football, the question is could other things be done. It’s not a lot of money here, roughly 3.2 million dollar savings could sustain 5 sports and 85 athletes . I won’t go into how much of that could be saved by eliminating the bloated salary’s of the football staff or the ridiculous ramp up of building facilities I could go on and on but essentially you all know that this escalation of funds for football and basketball are not sustainable and not even practical . There was no consideration of even trying to save these sports by creative funding measures such as cutting travel costs across the board, fundraising, staff elimination in these sports ... no Iowa Athletics just with one mighty swipe of the pen took the easy way out. My gosh we even spent what 6 million dollars on a lawsuit payout to a former associate but we couldn’t come up with sone money to keep 5 sports ?
At what point do you say enough is enough? At what point do we say this is ridiculous that Kirk Ferentz makes more money than these 5 sports spend in a year( Kirk... hint... why don’t you step up and take a 50% pay cut to fund these sports for another year until some more funding can be found)
Well thought out
 
And yet high schools can field these teams just fine without the revenue from a football team

Weird...
 
It sounds like you and @hawkedoff share a lot of the same "ideas". Should definitely PM each other to collaborate. It looks like you at least acknowledge that said programs are non-revenue generating and require subsidies from the football/ basketball programs to exist, so maybe you can work on him. He might through out a juicy Coe College reference that he thinks is somehow relevant, so be ready for that one.

So asshole cut the entire university of northern Iowa athletic program and give that money to Iowa and iowa state athletic department.
 
So the University if Iowa has decided that they are going to play football. Are we expected to get excited about the fact that the season will be basically meaningless. I mean after all there is no guarantee that they are going to even play 8 games and even in doing so how many limited participants will we have as the season progresses. It appears that this will be a week to week list of who can play and what team gets lucky enough to field their best players Under this scenario no one can really say that because of these factors we can really determine a true winner.

What pisses me off is that despite all the feel good statements it’s really about trying limit the financial impact that not having a football season would create . In between this stop and start scenario The University of Iowa Athletic Department dropped 5 sports programs and subsequently ended the dreams of roughly the same amount (85)of student-athletes and instead made the choice to have 85 players play football.
Yes I know they were non revenue sports and despite what I hear many of you saying theses were not sports that that the athletic departments were going to cut anyway. There are athletic departments across the country that are not cutting out other programs, yes Minnesota is one but it isn’t happening at almost any other school.

What makes it worse is that even now after getting some of that revenue back there is no consideration at all to reverse course and do the right thing . Non-Revenue sports do not need to be cut,
They are an integral part in a healthy athletic program, there are literally thousands of non-revenue sports across the land that continue to and will continue to exist because essentially they are part of an overall athletic program and yes I understand that football revenue is the reason they exist and everyone should be ok with that .

The problem is not the fact that these non-revenue sports exists because of football, the question is could other things be done. It’s not a lot of money here, roughly 3.2 million dollar savings could sustain 5 sports and 85 athletes . I won’t go into how much of that could be saved by eliminating the bloated salary’s of the football staff or the ridiculous ramp up of building facilities I could go on and on but essentially you all know that this escalation of funds for football and basketball are not sustainable and not even practical . There was no consideration of even trying to save these sports by creative funding measures such as cutting travel costs across the board, fundraising, staff elimination in these sports ... no Iowa Athletics just with one mighty swipe of the pen took the easy way out. My gosh we even spent what 6 million dollars on a lawsuit payout to a former associate but we couldn’t come up with sone money to keep 5 sports ?
At what point do you say enough is enough? At what point do we say this is ridiculous that Kirk Ferentz makes more money than these 5 sports spend in a year( Kirk... hint... why don’t you step up and take a 50% pay cut to fund these sports for another year until some more funding can be found)
How many Iowa hs boys are playing those sports? Seems to me it pales in comparison to the number of Iowa boys playing football.
 
And yet high schools can field these teams just fine without the revenue from a football team

Weird...
Imagine thinking the costs to field a HS football team are in the same galaxy as those to field a college football team. Even proportionally. This is a terribly stupid argument.

EDIT: make that ANY college athletic team.
 
Last edited:
That’s not the point, the point is that Kirk Ferentz along with college football in general have reached a point where their bloated salary’s and the athletic departments race to spend millions of dollars on facilities have made a dramatic and often fatal effects on amateur sports overall at the college level . The end result is not sustainable and the consequences will be that years from now you may only have a half dozen sports at a college. That is not an Athletic Program, it is not what amateur athletics and the NCAA mission statements are designed to do . You are eliminating opportunities for thousands of athletes just for the benefit of 85 football players .
Frankly there is very little going on right now in college athletics, that has ANYTHING to do with the NCAA's mission statement as you put it. Hasn't been for quite awhile. BUT, how do you plan on fixing the issue? The Fact is that college football pays for these other programs to exist, period. Without it how would they be able to exist financially? Who's going to pay Lisa Bluders salary, because it sure as hell won't be the womens basketball revenue. It's just where we are now. Without the "Benefit" of having football , there is no athletic program or facilities.
 
1. It's pretty clear most AD's really don't care about olympic sports for the most part.
2. Like it or not, the more money AD's make from football, the more money that's going to flow in to football. It honestly sucks for those kids and coaches... but 15 years ago these olympic sport coaches were getting paid like 80k a year. Many of them have tripled their salaries due to football TV money. It sucks when the balloon pops but some random ribbon dancing coach isn't going to give back their inflated salary either.
#1 is not true at all. My buddy is the AD at South Dakota. The AD cares about every sport they offer.
 
And many schools in places like the SEC carry the absolute minimum number of sports possible to stay D1 while investing in football. There are places where AD's are run like a business.

My point on olympic sports proponents saying that everything is inflated in football, also don't acknowledge that everything got VERY inflated in the olympic sports. And when cuts need to happen, they aren't going to come from the cash cow. That is just a fact of life.
Probably get crushed for saying it, but I wish every conference followed the PAC12 model. I respect them for sponsoring the number of sports they do. In the flip side, their lack of funding towards football, thus lack of revenue in return, is really starting to threaten their ability to carry all those Olympic sports.

I guess the Big Ten does have a better balance.
I do wish the conference schools required all sxhools to offer a core sport requirement of football, M/W basketball, wrestling, baseball/softball, M/W ice hockey, M/W soccer M/W lacrosse, M/W X country, M/W track and field, M/W swimming & diving. Beyond that offer whatever you want. In fact, I think any schools that offered all those core sports should be deemed as meeting Title 9 requirements no matter the makeup of the general school population, etc.

ETA volleyball to my core list. Love women's volleyball.
 
I love people bitching about football then complaining about non-revenunue sports being cut. Attacking the football program has to be the dumbest thing I read. Fact is Gary Barta gets more phone calls and emails after Kirk squeaks out a win then the total calls he takes cutting these programs.

There's a pandemic. Tough decisions have be made. Deal with it and open you pocket book. Reason Barta doesn't want to talk is he knows the $$f aren't there. And I'm no Barta fan.
 
Honest question.

Many of you say that these sports didn't exist before football or being bank rolled by football. Is that really so? I mean sports since Men's swimming and diving have existed since the early 1900's at UI. Pretty sure football wasn't generating diddly squat revenue then.

So what gives? What changed?
The Federal and State government used to directly subsidize college athletics and used to subsidize tuition more as well. All of those tax cuts we’ve had came from cutting discretionary spending like that. About 10 years ago the subsidies completely stopped. Iowa doesn’t ask for a student fee for athletics either (the current fee pays for a facility that is open to the student body). So football has a burden it didn’t use to have.

Minnesota students should march on their campus to have those sports restored because the state funds non revenue sports scholarships and gets a big student fee to boot, and those haven’t and won’t go away even with the pandemic.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GOHOX69
Pecker Boy needs to start a gofundme and raise about 40 mill. Then Gary and Bruce will be on board.
 
The Federal and State government used to directly subsidize college athletics and used to subsidize tuition more as well. All of those tax cuts we’ve had came from cutting discretionary spending like that. About 10 years ago the subsidies completely stopped. Iowa doesn’t ask for a student fee for athletics either (the current fee pays for a facility that is open to the student body). So football has a burden it didn’t use to have.

Minnesota students should march on their campus to have those sports restored because the state funds non revenue sports scholarships and gets a big student fee to boot, and those haven’t and won’t go away even with the pandemic.
You need some learning on the relationship of tax revenues to government spending - there ain't none. The federal government has never, ever cut one dollar of spending as the result of any tax cut. They are not related. State budgets are different because they cannot print their money.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LarryMullenJr.
How come we have no checkers or chess or virtual gaming? Those people feel left out I am sure.
 
And yet high schools can field these teams just fine without the revenue from a football team

Weird...
They aren’t traveling out of state for meets, the kids probably aren’t living at home, nutrition, etc. I’m sorry but that was a piss poor argument.
 
Imagine thinking the costs to field a HS football team are in the same galaxy as those to field a college football team. Even proportionally. This is a terribly stupid argument.

EDIT: make that ANY college athletic team.
Might be one of the dumbest things I’ve read on these boards.
 
Peckerboy,
You are exactly what is wrong with this country today. We live in America! This is how America works! Try harder, work smarter, be awesome... get paid and live right.
If you don't love it, leave it.
Snowflake ❄
 
ADVERTISEMENT