Capt. Tuttle said:Because it's not. Here is SU's mission statement: Scholarship in Action is the bold vision that propels Syracuse University — a vision for education that’s not static or for its own sake, but breaks out of the traditional “ivory tower.” It drives us to forge innovative and sustained partnerships across our local and global communities. And that makes SU a place where students become leaders, scholars become collaborators, and the community is continually energized by new ideas. Not a mention of athletics. If the Euro model of club sports vs college sports were adopted, major colleges would be better off as institutions of learning.
The money is getting large enough that they may be worse off without the influx of cash from athletics. There's a reason the presidents like the TV deals and have played an active role in conference alignment - and it's not school spirit.
OttoMets said:Well of course - there's as much greed in the administration buildings as there is in Indianapolis. Someone's got to pay for the bloated bureaucracies at all these schools - the Assistant Vice Chancellor of Bullshit doesn't fund itself.
But athletics distract colleges from their precious 100+ year old missions! THE MISSIONS! You can't educate people and generate money by fielding competitive sports at the same time. That would be unpossible.Either way you want to slice it (altruistic ideal vs greedy fat presidents) - money from athletics is a valued commodity.
My wife studied some of this stuff in grad school 10 years ago and most schools lost $ on football - TV $ kicks in and there is enough to fund tons beyond athletics. Unless you need your whiffle ball field reseeded, of course.